Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Pediatric Radiology 8/2020

01-07-2020 | Tissue Plasminogen Activator | Original Article

Implantable venous access devices in children with severe hemophilia: a tertiary pediatric institutional experience

Authors: Maria A. Bedoya, Leslie Raffini, Rachelle Durand, Michael R. Acord, Abhay Srinivasan, Ganesh Krishnamurthy, Seth Vatsky, Fernando Escobar, Anne Marie Cahill

Published in: Pediatric Radiology | Issue 8/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Clotting factor replacement forms the pillar of treatment for children with hemophilia. Most children can be treated using peripheral venipuncture, but very young children and children with poor venous access might require a central venous catheter. Short-term and long-term complications of implantable venous access device placement (also known as port placement) can result in important morbidity and mortality in children with hemophilia.

Objective

The purpose of this study is to describe our experience with port placement in children and adolescents with severe hemophilia (<1% of the Factors VIII or IX).

Materials and methods

We performed a retrospective review over a 10-year period to identify port placement in pediatric patients with severe hemophilia. We reviewed demographic and procedural information, access frequency, mechanical complications, and central-line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI). Eighteen males were included, with median age at insertion of 3.9 years (0.7–22.7 years). Fifteen of the 18 patients had hemophilia Type A and 3/18 had Type B. Thirteen had high neutralizing inhibitor titers.

Results

Technical success in port placement was achieved in 26/27 (96.3%) patients, with 1 port failure caused by venous occlusion from prior catheter placement. Port catheter size ranged from 5 French (Fr) to 7.5 Fr. All were single-lumen and placed via right (76.9%) or left (23.1%) internal jugular vein; 59.3% were placed during general anesthesia, and all had factor replacement prophylaxis. A peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) was placed concurrently in 69.2% of the cases; per hospital policy, the port was only accessed 15 days post-placement to reduce the risk of site hematoma. Two patients were lost to follow-up. The total catheter days was 15,893. Ports were removed in 14/24 cases, most commonly because of CLABSI (7/24; 29.2%) and transition to peripheral infusion (3/24; 12.5%). Bleeding was the most common complication in the first 30 days after placement. There were nine CLABSI events (0.57 per 1,000 catheter days), all in patients with high neutralizing inhibitor titers. A higher frequency of port access (more or equal to daily vs. less than daily) correlated with higher infection rates (P=0.02). Median time from port insertion to first infection was 348 days (range 167–1,055 days). There were four fibrin-sheath-related catheter occlusions (0.25 per 1,000 catheter days): three catheters were salvaged with intra-catheter tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) instillation resulting in a salvage of an additional 1,214 catheter days, and one catheter was removed after tPA failure (0.06 per 1,000 catheter days).

Conclusion

Port maintenance in boys with severe hemophilia is challenging given the need for long-term frequent device access that is associated with catheter-related infections. The rate of bleeding or infection did not differ in patients whether the device was accessed immediately or 15 days post placement. With appropriate pre- and post-procedural factor replacement, immediate and early term severe complications are not common.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Rocino A, Franchini M, Coppola A (2017) Treatment and prevention of bleeds in haemophilia patients with inhibitors to factor VIII/IX. J Clin Med 6:46CrossRef Rocino A, Franchini M, Coppola A (2017) Treatment and prevention of bleeds in haemophilia patients with inhibitors to factor VIII/IX. J Clin Med 6:46CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Kulkarni R, Presley RJ, Lusher JM et al (2016) Complications of haemophilia in babies (first two years of life): a report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention universal data collection system. Haemophilia 23:207–214CrossRef Kulkarni R, Presley RJ, Lusher JM et al (2016) Complications of haemophilia in babies (first two years of life): a report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention universal data collection system. Haemophilia 23:207–214CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Titapiwatanakun R, Moir C, Pruthi RK et al (2009) Central venous access devices for paediatric patients with haemophilia: a single-institution experience. Haemophilia 15:168–174CrossRef Titapiwatanakun R, Moir C, Pruthi RK et al (2009) Central venous access devices for paediatric patients with haemophilia: a single-institution experience. Haemophilia 15:168–174CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Silberzweig JE, Sacks D, Khorsandi AS et al (2003) Reporting standards for central venous access. J Vasc Interv Radiol 14:S443–S452CrossRef Silberzweig JE, Sacks D, Khorsandi AS et al (2003) Reporting standards for central venous access. J Vasc Interv Radiol 14:S443–S452CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Ullman AJ, Marsh N, Mihala G et al (2015) Complications of central venous access devices: a systematic review. Pediatrics 136:e1331–e1344CrossRef Ullman AJ, Marsh N, Mihala G et al (2015) Complications of central venous access devices: a systematic review. Pediatrics 136:e1331–e1344CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Valentino LA, Ewenstein B, Navickis RJ, Wilkes MM (2004) Central venous access devices in haemophilia. Haemophilia 10:134–146CrossRef Valentino LA, Ewenstein B, Navickis RJ, Wilkes MM (2004) Central venous access devices in haemophilia. Haemophilia 10:134–146CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Izzi G, Franchini M, Bonetti L, Tagliaferri A (2010) The use of central venous catheters in haemophilia patients. Haemophilia 16:29–31CrossRef Izzi G, Franchini M, Bonetti L, Tagliaferri A (2010) The use of central venous catheters in haemophilia patients. Haemophilia 16:29–31CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Vepsäläinen K, Lassila R, Arola M et al (2015) Complications associated with central venous access device in children with haemophilia: a nationwide multicentre study in Finland. Haemophilia 21:747–753CrossRef Vepsäläinen K, Lassila R, Arola M et al (2015) Complications associated with central venous access device in children with haemophilia: a nationwide multicentre study in Finland. Haemophilia 21:747–753CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Miller K, Buchanan GR, Zappa S et al (1998) Implantable venous access devices in children with hemophilia: a report of low infection rates. J Pediatr 132:934–938CrossRef Miller K, Buchanan GR, Zappa S et al (1998) Implantable venous access devices in children with hemophilia: a report of low infection rates. J Pediatr 132:934–938CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Rodriguez V, Mancuso ME, Warad D et al (2015) Central venous access device (CVAD) complications in haemophilia with inhibitors undergoing immune tolerance induction: lessons from the international immune tolerance study. Haemophilia 21:e369–e374CrossRef Rodriguez V, Mancuso ME, Warad D et al (2015) Central venous access device (CVAD) complications in haemophilia with inhibitors undergoing immune tolerance induction: lessons from the international immune tolerance study. Haemophilia 21:e369–e374CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Yeoh ZH, Furmedge J, Ekert J et al (2013) Central venous access device-related infections in patients with haemophilia. J Paediatr Child Health 49:242–245CrossRef Yeoh ZH, Furmedge J, Ekert J et al (2013) Central venous access device-related infections in patients with haemophilia. J Paediatr Child Health 49:242–245CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Mccarthy CE, O’Brien M, Andrews J et al (2016) Updated analysis: central venous access device infection rates in an expanded cohort of paediatric patients with severe haemophilia receiving prophylactic recombinant tissue plasminogen activator. Haemophilia 22:81–86CrossRef Mccarthy CE, O’Brien M, Andrews J et al (2016) Updated analysis: central venous access device infection rates in an expanded cohort of paediatric patients with severe haemophilia receiving prophylactic recombinant tissue plasminogen activator. Haemophilia 22:81–86CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Harroche A, Merckx J, Salvi N et al (2015) Long-term follow-up of children with haemophilia — low incidence of infections with central venous access devices. Haemophilia 21:465–468CrossRef Harroche A, Merckx J, Salvi N et al (2015) Long-term follow-up of children with haemophilia — low incidence of infections with central venous access devices. Haemophilia 21:465–468CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Santagostino E, Mancuso ME (2010) Venous access in haemophilic children: choice and management. Haemophilia 16:20–24CrossRef Santagostino E, Mancuso ME (2010) Venous access in haemophilic children: choice and management. Haemophilia 16:20–24CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Mahlangu J, Oldenburg J, Paz-Priel I et al (2018) Emicizumab prophylaxis in patients who have hemophilia a without inhibitors. N Engl J Med 379:811–822CrossRef Mahlangu J, Oldenburg J, Paz-Priel I et al (2018) Emicizumab prophylaxis in patients who have hemophilia a without inhibitors. N Engl J Med 379:811–822CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Implantable venous access devices in children with severe hemophilia: a tertiary pediatric institutional experience
Authors
Maria A. Bedoya
Leslie Raffini
Rachelle Durand
Michael R. Acord
Abhay Srinivasan
Ganesh Krishnamurthy
Seth Vatsky
Fernando Escobar
Anne Marie Cahill
Publication date
01-07-2020
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Pediatric Radiology / Issue 8/2020
Print ISSN: 0301-0449
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1998
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-020-04668-3

Other articles of this Issue 8/2020

Pediatric Radiology 8/2020 Go to the issue