Top

International Journal of Clinical Oncology

Published in:

Open Access 01-06-2016 | Original Article

A retrospective analysis on the utility and complications of upper arm ports in 433 cases at a single institute

Authors: Yukiko Mori, Satoshi Nagayama, Jun-ichiro Kawamura, Suguru Hasegawa, Eiji Tanaka, Hiroshi Okabe, Megumi Takeuchi, Makoto Sonobe, Shigemi Matsumoto, Masashi Kanai, Manabu Muto, Tsutomu Chiba, Yoshiharu Sakai

Published in: International Journal of Clinical Oncology | Issue 3/2016

Abstract

Background

We have employed upper arm central venous ports (UACVPs) since 2006 for long-term intravenous chemotherapy (CTx) or fluid supplementation. We evaluated the long-term availability of CVPs implanted in the upper arm to determine whether UACVPs could be one of the treatment options besides chest CVPs in terms of CVP-related complications.

Methods

We reviewed the medical records of all patients who underwent subcutaneous implantation of UACVPs at Kyoto University Hospital from 1 April, 2006 to 30 June, 2009. We assessed the indwelling duration of the UACVPs and the incidences of early and late UACVP-related complications.

Results

A total of 433 patients underwent subcutaneous implantation of UACVPs during this time period. The cumulative follow-up period was 251,538 catheter days, and the median duration of UACVP indwelling was 439.0 days (1–2, 24). There was no UACVP-related mortality throughout the study period. A total of 83 UACVP-related complications occurred (19.2 %), including 43 cases of infection (9.9 %, 0.17/1000 catheter days), ten cases of catheter-related thrombosis (2.3 %, 0.040/1000 catheter days), ten cases of occlusion (2.3 %, 0.040/1000 catheter days), nine cases of catheter dislocation (2.0 %, 0.036/1000 catheter days), five cases of port leakage (1.2 %, 0.019/1000 catheter days), four cases of skin dehiscence (0.9 %, 0.015/1000 catheter days) and two cases of port chamber twist (0.5 %, 0.008/1000 catheter days). The removal-free one-year port availability was estimated at 87.8 %.

Conclusions

UACVPs were of long-term utility, with complication rates comparable to those of chest CVPs previously reported.

Engstrom PF, Arnoletti JP, Benson AB 3rd et al (2009) NCCN Clinical practice guidelines in oncology: colon cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 7:778–831PubMed

Engstrom PF, Arnoletti JP, Benson AB 3rd et al (2009) NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: rectal cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 7:838–881PubMed

Benson AB 3rd, Bekaii-Saab T, Chan E et al (2013) Metastatic colon cancer, version 3.2013: featured updates to the NCCN Guidelines. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 11(2):141–152PubMed

Conroy T, Desseigne F, Ychou M et al (2011) FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine for metastatic pancreatic cancer. N Engl J Med 364(19):1817–1825CrossRefPubMed

Di Carlo I, Cordio S, La Greca G et al (2001) Totally implantable venous access devices implanted surgically: a retrospective study on early and late complications. Arch Surg 136:1050–1053CrossRefPubMed

Lorch H, Zwaan M, Kagel C et al (2001) Central venous access ports placed by interventional radiologists: experience with 125 consecutive patients. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 24:180–184CrossRefPubMed

Damascelli B, Patelli G, Frigerio LF et al (1997) Placement of long-term central venous catheters in outpatients: study of 134 patients over 24 596 catheter-days. Am J Roentgenol 168:1235–1239CrossRef

Sakamoto N, Arai Y, Takeuchi Y et al (2010) Ultrasound-guided radiological placement of central venous port via the subclavian vein: a retrospective analysis of 500 cases at a single institute. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 33:989–994CrossRefPubMed

Hinke DH, Zandt-Stastny DA, Goodman LR et al (1990) Pinchoff syndrome: a complication of implantable subclavian venous access devices. Radiology 177:353–356CrossRefPubMed

10.

Klotz HP, Schöpke W, Kohler A et al (1996) Catheter fracture: a rare complication of totally implantable subclavian venous access devices. J Surg Oncol 62:222–225CrossRefPubMed

11.

Mirza B, Vanek VW, Kupensky DT (2004) Pinch-off syndrome: case report and collective review of the literature. Am Surg 70:635–644PubMed

12.

Pittiruti M, Malerba M, Carriero C et al (2000) Which is the easiest and safest technique for central venous access? A retrospective survey of more than 5400 cases. J Vasc Access 1:100–107PubMed

13.

Schuman E, Brady A, Gross G et al (1987) Vascular access options for outpatient cancer therapy. Am J Surg 153:487–489CrossRefPubMed

14.

Teichgräber UK, Kausche S, Nagel SN et al (2011) Outcome analysis in 3160 implantations of radiologically guided placements of totally implantable central venous port systems. Eur Radiol 21:1224–1232CrossRefPubMed

15.

Sofocleous CT, Schur I, Cooper SG et al (1998) Sonographically guided placement of peripherally inserted central venous catheters: review of 355 procedures. Am J Roentgenol 170:1613–1616CrossRef

16.

Marcy PY, Figl A, Amoretti N et al (2010) Arm port implantation in cancer patients. Int J Clin Oncol 15:328–330CrossRefPubMed

17.

Marcy PY, Magné N, Castadot P et al (2007) Is radiologic placement of an arm port mandatory in oncology patients: analysis of a large bi-institutional experience. Cancer 110:2331–2338CrossRefPubMed

18.

Kawamura J, Nagayama S, Nomura A et al (2008) Long-term outcomes of peripheral arm ports implanted in patients with colorectal cancer. Int J Clin Oncol 13:349–354CrossRefPubMed

19.

Shetty PC, Mody MK, Kastan DJ et al (1997) Outcome of 350 implanted chest ports placed by interventional radiologists. J Vasc Interv Radiol 8:991–995CrossRefPubMed

20.

Funaki B, Szymski GX, Hackworth CA et al (1997) Radiologic placement of subcutaneous infusion chest ports for long-time central venous access. Am J Roentgenol 169:1431–1434CrossRef

21.

Koch HJ, Pietsch M, Krause U et al (1998) Implantable vascular access systems: experience in 1500 patients with totally implanted central venous port systems. World J Surg 22:12–16CrossRef

22.

Biffi R, Martinelli G, Pozzi S et al (1999) Totally implantable central venous access ports for high-dose chemotherapy administration and autologous stem cell transplantation: analysis of overall and septic complications in 68 cases using a single type of device. Bone Marrow Transplant 24:89–93CrossRefPubMed

23.

Deppe G, Kahn ML, Malviya VK et al (1996) Experience with the P.A.S.-PORT venous access device in patients with gynecologic malignancies. Gynecol Oncol 62:340–343CrossRefPubMed

24.

Hata Y, Morita S, Morita Y et al (1998) Peripheral insertion of a central venous access device under fl uoroscopic guidance using a peripherally accessed system (PAS) port in the forearm. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 21:230–233CrossRefPubMed

25.

Bodner LJ, Nosher JL, Patel KM et al (2000) Peripheral venous access ports: outcomes analysis in 109 patients. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 23:187–193CrossRefPubMed

26.

Burbridge B, Krieger E, Stoneham G (2000) Arm placement of the cook titanium petite vital-port: results of radiologic placement in 125 patients with cancer. Can Assoc Radiol J 51:163–169PubMed

27.

Tsuboi N, Morita S, Yamanishi T et al (2003) Long-Term outcomes of a totally implantable central venous access system in the forearm. Jpn J Intervent Radiol 18:43–48

28.

Vescia S, Baumagartner AK, Jacobs VR et al (2008) Management of venous port systems in oncology: a review of current evidence. Ann Oncol 19:9–15CrossRefPubMed

29.

Kuriakose P, Colon-Otero G, Paz-Fumagalli R (2002) Risk of deep venous thrombosis associated with chest versus arm central venous subcutaneous port catheters: a 5 years single-institution retrospective study. J Vasc Interv Radiol 13:179–184CrossRefPubMed

30.

Marcy PY, Chamorey E, Amoretti N et al (2008) A comparison between distal and proximal port device insertion in head and neck cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 34:1262–1269CrossRefPubMed

31.

Marcy PY, Magné N, Castadot P et al (2005) Radiological and surgical placement of port devices: a 4 years institutional analysis of procedure performance, quality of life and cost in breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat 92:61–67CrossRefPubMed

32.

Debourdeau P, Kassab Chahmi D, Le Gal G et al (2008) SOR guidelines for the prevention and treatment of thrombosis associated with central venous catheters in patients with cancer: report from the working group. Ann Oncol 2009(20):1459–1471

33.

Khorana AA, Streiff MB, Farge D et al (2009) Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and treatment in cancer: a consensus statement of major guidelines panels and call to action. J Clin Oncol 27:4919–4926CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

34.

Heit JA, Silverstein MD, Mohr DN et al (2000) Risk factors for deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism: a population-based case-control study. Arch Intern Med 160:809–815CrossRefPubMed

35.

Silverstein MD, Heit JA, Mohr DN et al (1998) Trends in the incidence of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism: a 25 years population-based study. Arch Intern Med 158:585–593CrossRefPubMed

36.

Luciani A, Clement O, Halimi P et al (2001) Catheter-related upper extremity deep venous thrombosis in cancer patients: a prospective study based on Doppler US. Radiology 220:655–660CrossRefPubMed

37.

Hurwitz HI, Saltz LB, Cutsem EV et al (2011) Venous thromboembolic events with chemotherapy plus bevacizumab: a pooled analysis of patients in randomized phase II and III studies. J Clin Oncol 29:1757–1764CrossRefPubMed

Title: A retrospective analysis on the utility and complications of upper arm ports in 433 cases at a single institute
Authors: Yukiko Mori
Satoshi Nagayama
Jun-ichiro Kawamura
Suguru Hasegawa
Eiji Tanaka
Hiroshi Okabe
Megumi Takeuchi
Makoto Sonobe
Shigemi Matsumoto
Masashi Kanai
Manabu Muto
Tsutomu Chiba
Yoshiharu Sakai
Publication date: 01-06-2016
Publisher: Springer Japan
Published in: International Journal of Clinical Oncology / Issue 3/2016
Print ISSN: 1341-9625
Electronic ISSN: 1437-7772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-015-0917-1

Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras

Prof. Fabrice Barlesi

Developed by: Springer Medicine

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 3/2016

Outcomes of very elderly patients with aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma treated with reduced-dose chemotherapy

Anti-PD-L1/PD-1 immune therapies in ovarian cancer: basic mechanism and future clinical application

PD-1/PD-L1 blockage in cancer treatment—from basic research to clinical application

Preoperative predictive factors and further risk stratification of biochemical recurrence in clinically localized high-risk prostate cancer

Japan Society of Gynecologic Oncology guidelines 2015 for the treatment of ovarian cancer including primary peritoneal cancer and fallopian tube cancer

Gemcitabine in patients previously treated with platinum-containing chemotherapy for refractory thymic carcinoma: radiographic assessment using the RECIST criteria and the ITMIG recommendations

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer