Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology
Published in: CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology 1/2018

01-01-2018 | Clinical Investigation

Port Implantation in Patients with Severe Thrombocytopenia is Safe with Interventional Radiology

Authors: Annika R. Keulers, Lilian Kiesow, Andreas H. Mahnken

Published in: CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

Platelet counts <50/nl are often considered a contraindication for surgical and interventional radiology procedures. Yet, there are patients requiring totally implantable venous access ports (TIVAP) in whom normalization of the coagulation state is not feasible. This retrospective study evaluates the safety of interventional radiological TIVAP implantation in patients with severe thrombocytopenia.

Materials and Methods

From 12/2010 to 12/2014, a total 1200 consecutive radiological TIVAP implantations were performed and retrospectively analyzed. Among those 181 patients had platelet counts (PC) below the reference value of 150–350 thrombocytes/nl: 55 patients with mild (PC: 100–150/nl), 58 patients with moderate (PC: 50–100/nl) and 68 patients with severe thrombocytopenia (PC <50/nl). All patients diagnosed with severe thrombocytopenia received platelet concentrates before or during the procedure according to a fixed preparation protocol. All patients were assessed at least 2 weeks before and up to 12 months after intervention. Outcome parameters were recorded with a particular focus on bleeding complications. Data were statistically analyzed with a p value <0.05 considered statistically significant.

Results

The technical success rate for TIVAP implantation was 100%. Patients were followed for a mean of 833 indwelling catheter days in patients with thrombocytopenia (total: 150.923 days) and for 936 indwelling catheter days in patients with normal platelet counts (total: 953.760 days). No significant differences in complication rates between patients with normal platelet counts and patients with mild to severe thrombocytopenia under platelet substitution were found (p > 0.05), especially no bleeding complications occurred during acute, early or late phase.

Conclusion

With individualized platelet substitution, patients with severe thrombocytopenia may receive radiological TIVAP implantation without an increased risk of bleeding complications.

Level of Evidence

IV.
Literature
1.
Dariushnia SR, Wallace MJ, Siddiqi NH, Towbin RB, et al. Quality improvement guidelines for central venous access. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2010;21:976–81.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Lewis CA, Allen TE, Burke DR, Cardella JF, et al. Quality improvement guidelines for central venous access. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2003;14:231–5.
3.
Bishop L, Dougherty L, Bodenham A, Mansi J, et al. Guidelines on the insertion and management of central venous access devices in adults. Int J Lab Hematol. 2007;29:261–78.CrossRefPubMed
4.
5.
Hsu CCT, Kwan GN, van Driel ML, Rophael JA. Venous cutdown versus the Seldinger technique for placement of totally implantable venous access ports. The Cochrane Library 2011.
6.
Nocito A, Wildi S, Rufibach K, Clavien PA, et al. Randomized clinical trial comparing venous cutdown with the Seldinger technique for placement of implantable venous access ports. Br J Surg. 2009;96:1129–34.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Walser EM. Venous access ports: indications, implantation technique, follow-up, and complications. Cardiovas Interv Radiol. 2003;35:751–64.CrossRef
8.
Marcy PY, Magne N, Castadot P, Bailet C, et al. Radiological and surgical placement of port devices: a 4-year institutional analysis of procedure performance, quality of life and cost in breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2005;92:61–7.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Estcourt, LJ, Desborough M, Hopewell S, Doree C, Stanworth SJ. Comparison of different platelet transfusion thresholds prior to insertion of central lines in patients with thrombocytopenia. The Cochrane Library 2015.
10.
Cameron B, Rock G, Olberg B, Neurath D. Evaluation of platelet transfusion triggers in a tertiary-care hospital. Transfusion. 2007;47(2):206–11.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Greeno E, McCullough J, Weisdorf D. Platelet utilization and the transfusion trigger: a prospective analysis. Transfusion. 2007;47(2):201–5.CrossRefPubMed
12.
British Committee for Standards in Haematology. Blood transfusion task force. Guidelines for the use of platelet transfusions. Br J Haematol. 2003;122(1):10–23.CrossRef
13.
Kaufman RM, Djulbegovic B, Gernsheimer T, Kleinman S, et al. Platelet transfusion: a clinical practice guideline from the AABB. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(3):205–13.CrossRefPubMed
14.
The Board of the German Medical Association on the recommendation of the Scientific Advisory Board Platelet transfusions. Transfusion Medicine and Hemotherapy. 2009;36:372–82.
15.
Venkatesan AM, Kundu S, Sacks D, Wallace MJ, et al. Practice guideline for adult antibiotic prophylaxis during vascular and interventional radiology procedures. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2010;21:1611–30.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Ryan JM, Ryan BM, Smith T. Antibiotic prophylaxis in interventional radiology. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2004;15:547–56.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Marcy PY. Central venous access: techniques and indications in oncology. Eur Radiol. 2008;18:2333–44.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Frykholm P, Pikwer A, Hammarskjöld F, Larsson AT, et al. Clinical guidelines on central venous catheterisation. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2014;58(5):508–24.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Society of Interventional Radiology Standards of Practice Committee, Omary RA, Bettmann MA, Cardella JF, Curtis WB, et al. Quality improvement guidelines for the reporting and archiving of interventional radiology procedures. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2003;14:293–5.CrossRef
20.
Konkle BA. Percutaneous interventions in the coagulopathic patient. Semin Interv Radiol. 2005;22:88–94.CrossRef
21.
Patel IJ, Davidson JC, Nikolic B, Salazar GM, et al. Standards of Practice Committee: Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE) Endorsement. Consensus guidelines for periprocedural management of coagulation status and hemostasis risk in percutaneous image-guided interventions. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2012;23:727–36.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Hall DP, Estcourt LJ, Doree C, Hopewell S, et al. Plasma transfusions prior to insertion of central lines for people with abnormal coagulation. The Cochrane Library 2016.
23.
Fonseca A, Nagel K, Decker K, Pukulakatt M, et al. Central venous access device insertion and perioperative management of patients with severe haemophilia A: a local experience. Blood Coagul Fibrinolysis. 2016;27(2):156–9.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Doerfler ME, Kaufman B, Goldenberg AS. Central venous catheter placement in patients with disorders of hemostasis. Chest. 1996;110:185–8.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Ray CE Jr, Shenoy SS. Patients with thrombocytopenia: outcome of radiologic placement of central venous access devices. Radiology. 1997;204:97–9.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Schiffer CA, Anderson KC, Bennett CL, et al. Platelet transfusion for patients with cancer: clinical practice guidelines of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:1519–38.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Patel GS, Jain K, Kumar R, Strickland AH, et al. Comparison of peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICC) versus subcutaneously implanted port-chamber catheters by complication and cost for patients receiving chemotherapy for non-haematological malignancies. Support Care Cancer. 2014;22(1):121–8.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Kabsy Y, Baudin G, Vinti H, Novellas S, et al. Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) in onco-hematology. PICC line in onco-hematology. Bull Cancer. 2010;97(9):1067–71.PubMed
29.
Chopra V, Anand S, Hickner A, Buist M, et al. Risk of venous thromboembolism associated with peripherally inserted central catheters: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2013;382:311–25.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Pektaş A, Kara A, Gurgey A. Cohort study: central venous catheter-related complications in children with hematologic diseases at a single center. Turk J Hematol. 2015;32(2):144.CrossRef
31.
Morado M, Jimenez-Yuste V, Villar A, et al. Complications of central venous catheters in patients with haemophilia and inhibitors. Haemophilia. 2001;7:551–6.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Pittiruti M, Hamilton H, Biffi R, MacFie J, et al. ESPEN Guidelines on Parenteral Nutrition: central venous catheters (access, care, diagnosis and therapy of complications). Clin Nutr. 2009;28:365–77.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Gebauer B, El-Sheik M, Vogt M, Wagner HJ. Combined ultrasound and fluoroscopy guided port catheter implantation—high success and low complication rate. Eur J Radiol. 2009;69:517–22.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Vardy J, Engelhardt K, Cox K, Jacquet J, et al. Long-term outcome of radiological-guided insertion of implanted central venous access port devices (CVAPD) for the delivery of chemotherapy in cancer patients: institutional experience and review of the literature. Br J Cancer. 2004;91:1045–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
35.
Teichgräber UK, Nagel SN, Kausche S, Enzweiler C. Clinical benefit of power-injectable port systems: a prospective observational study. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81:528–33.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Tercan F, Ozkan U, Oguzkurt L. US-guided placement of central vein catheters in patients with disorders of hemostasis. Eur J Radiol. 2008;65:253–6.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Vigna PD, Monfardini L, Bonomo G, et al. Coagulation disorders in patients with cancer: nontunneled central venous catheter placement with US guidance—a single institution retrospective analysis. Radiology. 2009;253:149–52.
38.
Wiegand K, Encke J, Meyer FJ, Hinkel UP, et al. Low levels of prothrombin time (INR) and platelets do not increase the risk of significant bleeding when placing central venous catheters. Med Klin. 2009;104:331–5.CrossRef
39.
Fisher NC, Mutimer DJ. Central venous cannulation in patients with liver disease and coagulopathy—a prospective audit. Intensive Care Med. 1999;25:481–5.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Port Implantation in Patients with Severe Thrombocytopenia is Safe with Interventional Radiology
Authors
Annika R. Keulers
Lilian Kiesow
Andreas H. Mahnken
Publication date
01-01-2018
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology / Issue 1/2018
Print ISSN: 0174-1551
Electronic ISSN: 1432-086X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-017-1794-y

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology 1/2018 Go to the issue

Clinical Investigation

Endovascular Stroke Treatment: How Far Downstream Should We Go?

Erratum

Erratum to: CT-Guided Percutaneous Trans-scapular Lung Biopsy in the Diagnosis of Peripheral Pulmonary Lesion Nodules of the Superior Lobes Using Large Needles

Clinical Investigation

Ultrasound-Guided Popliteal Sciatic Block Provides Adequate Analgesia During Urgent Endovascular Treatment of Critical Limb Ischemia with Resting Pain

Technical Note

Use of a Re-entry Device in Left Subclavian Occlusion: Case Series

Clinical Investigation

Eleven-Year Retrospective Report of Super-Selective Venous Sampling for the Evaluation of Recurrent or Persistent Hyperparathyroidism in 32 Patients

Laboratory Investigation

Hepatic Intra-arterial Delivery of a “Trojan-horses” Gene Therapy: A Pilot Study on Rabbit VX2 Hepatic Tumor Model