Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Research

Port type is a possible risk factor for implantable venous access port-related bloodstream infections and no sign of local infection predicts the growth of gram-negative bacilli

Authors: Jui-Feng Hsu, Hsu-Liang Chang, Ming-Ju Tsai, Ying-Ming Tsai, Yen-Lung Lee, Pei-Huan Chen, Wen-Chieh Fan, Yu-Chung Su, Chih-Jen Yang

Published in: World Journal of Surgical Oncology | Issue 1/2015

Abstract

Background

Implantable venous access port (IVAP)-related blood stream infections (BSIs) are one of the most common complications of implantable venous ports. The risk factors and pathogens for IVAP-related BSIs are still controversial.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed all patients who received IVAPs at a Hospital in Taiwan from January 1, 2011 to June 31, 2014. Two types of venous port, BardPort® 6.6 fr (Bard port) and Autosuture Chemosite® 7.5 fr (TYCO port) were used. All patients with clinically proven venous port-related BSIs were enrolled.

Results

A total of 552 patients were enrolled. There were 34 episodes of IVAP-related BSIs during the study period for a total incidence of 0.177 events/1000 catheter days. Port type (TYCO vs. Bard, HR = 7.105 (95 % confidence interval (CI), 1.688–29.904), p = 0.0075), age > 65 years (HR = 2.320 (95 % CI, 1.179–4.564), p = 0.0148), and lung cancer (HR = 5.807 (95 % CI, 2.946–11.447), p < 0.001) were risk factors for port infections. We also found that no local sign of infection was significantly associated with the growth of gram-negative bacilli (p = 0.031).

Conclusions

TYCO venous ports, age > 65 years, and lung cancer were all significant risk factors for IVAP-related BSIs, and no sign of infection was significantly associated with the growth of gram-negative bacilli.

Poorter RL, Lauw FN, Bemelman WA, Bakker PJ, Taat CW, Veenhof CH. Complications of an implantable venous access device (Port-a-Cath) during intermittent continuous infusion of chemotherapy. Eur J Cancer. 1996;32A:2262–6.CrossRefPubMed

Biffi R, Corrado F, de Braud F, de Lucia F, Scarpa D, Testori A, et al. Long-term, totally implantable central venous access ports connected to a Groshong catheter for chemotherapy of solid tumours: experience from 178 cases using a single type of device. Eur J Cancer. 1997;33:1190–4.CrossRefPubMed

Kock HJ, Pietsch M, Krause U, Wilke H, Eigler FW. Implantable vascular access systems: experience in 1500 patients with totally implanted central venous port systems. World J Surg. 1998;22:12–6.CrossRefPubMed

Zaghal A, Khalife M, Mukherji D, El MN, Shamseddine A, Hoballah J, et al. Update on totally implantable venous access devices. Surg Oncol. 2012;21:207–15.CrossRefPubMed

Kim HJ, Yun J, Kim HJ, Kim KH, Kim SH, Lee SC, et al. Safety and effectiveness of central venous catheterization in patients with cancer: prospective observational study. J Korean Med Sci. 2010;25:1748–53.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

Yeste SL, Galbis Caravajal JM, Fuster Diana CA, Moledo EE. Protocol for the implantation of a venous access device (Port-A-Cath System). The complications and solutions found in 560 cases. Clin Transl Oncol. 2006;8:735–41.CrossRef

Huang WT, Chen TY, Su WC, Yen CJ, Tsao CJ. Implantable venous port-related infections in cancer patients. Support Care Cancer. 2004;12:197–201.CrossRefPubMed

Shim J, Seo TS, Song MG, Cha IH, Kim JS, Choi CW, et al. Incidence and risk factors of infectious complications related to implantable venous-access ports. Korean J Radiol. 2014;15:494–500.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

Marin M, Gudiol C, Garcia-Vidal C, Ardanuy C, Carratala J. Bloodstream infections in patients with solid tumors: epidemiology, antibiotic therapy, and outcomes in 528 episodes in a single cancer center. Medicine (Baltimore). 2014;93:143–9.CrossRef

10.

Lee GJ, Hong SH, Roh SY, Park SR, Lee MA, Chun HG, et al. A case–control study to identify risk factors for totally implantable central venous port-related bloodstream infection. Cancer Res Treat. 2014;46:250–60.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

11.

Anatoliotaki M, Valatas V, Mantadakis E, Apostolakou H, Mavroudis D, Georgoulias V, et al. Bloodstream infections in patients with solid tumors: associated factors, microbial spectrum and outcome. Infection. 2004;32:65–71.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Samaras P, Dold S, Braun J, Kestenholz P, Breitenstein S, Imhof A, et al. Infectious port complications are more frequent in younger patients with hematologic malignancies than in solid tumor patients. Oncology. 2008;74:237–44.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Liaw CC, Chen JS, Chang HK, Huang JS, Yang TS, Liau CT. Symptoms and signs of port-related infections in oncology patients related to the offending pathogens. Int J Clin Pract. 2008;62:1193–8.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Caers J, Fontaine C, Vinh-Hung V, De MJ, Ponnet G, Oost C, et al. Catheter tip position as a risk factor for thrombosis associated with the use of subcutaneous infusion ports. Support Care Cancer. 2005;13:325–31.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Fan WC, Wu CH, Tsai MJ, Tsai YM, Chang HL, Hung JY, et al. Risk factors for venous port migration in a single institute in Taiwan. World J Surg Oncol. 2014;12:15.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

16.

Pascual A. Pathogenesis of catheter-related infections: lessons for new designs. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2002;8:256–64.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Darouiche RO. Device-associated infections: a macroproblem that starts with microadherence. Clin Infect Dis. 2001;33:1567–72.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Mehall JR, Saltzman DA, Jackson RJ, Smith SD. Catheter materials affect the incidence of late blood-borne catheter infection. Surg Infect (Larchmt ). 2001;2:225–9.CrossRef

19.

Galliani S, Cremieux A, van der Auwera P, Viot M. Influence of strain, biomaterial, proteins, and oncostatic chemotherapy on Staphylococcus epidermidis adhesion to intravascular catheters in vitro. J Lab Clin Med. 1996;127:71–80.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Kristinsson KG. Adherence of staphylococci to intravascular catheters. J Med Microbiol. 1989;28:249–57.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Fischer L, Knebel P, Schroder S, Bruckner T, Diener MK, Hennes R, et al. Reasons for explantation of totally implantable access ports: a multivariate analysis of 385 consecutive patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15:1124–9.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Ahn SJ, Kim HC, Chung JW, An SB, Yin YH, Jae HJ, et al. Ultrasound and fluoroscopy-guided placement of central venous ports via internal jugular vein: retrospective analysis of 1254 port implantations at a single center. Korean J Radiol. 2012;13:314–23.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

23.

Gapany C, Tercier S, Diezi M, Clement C, Lemay K, Joseph JM. Frequent accesses to totally implanted vascular ports in pediatric oncology patients are associated with higher infection rates. J Vasc Access. 2011;12:207–10.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Laurenzi L, Natoli S, Benedetti C, Marcelli ME, Tirelli W, DiEmidio L, et al. Cutaneous bacterial colonization, modalities of chemotherapeutic infusion, and catheter-related bloodstream infection in totally implanted venous access devices. Support Care Cancer. 2004;12:805–9.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Heibl C, Trommet V, Burgstaller S, Mayrbaeurl B, Baldinger C, Koplmuller R, et al. Complications associated with the use of Port-a-Caths in patients with malignant or haematological disease: a single-centre prospective analysis. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl ). 2010;19:676–81.CrossRef

26.

Penzak SR, Gubbins PO, Stratton SL, Anaissie EJ. Investigation of an outbreak of gram-negative bacteremia among hematology-oncology outpatients. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2000;21:597–9.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Groeger JS, Lucas AB, Thaler HT, Friedlander-Klar H, Brown AE, Kiehn TE, et al. Infectious morbidity associated with long-term use of venous access devices in patients with cancer. Ann Intern Med. 1993;119:1168–74.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Castagnola E, Garaventa A, Viscoli C, Carrega G, Nantron M, Molinari C, et al. Changing pattern of pathogens causing broviac catheter-related bacteraemias in children with cancer. J Hosp Infect. 1995;29:129–33.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Barbut F, Soukouna S, Lalande V, Garcia ML, Neyme D, de Gramont A, et al. [Totally implantable venous access ports: frequency of complications and analysis of bacterial contamination after ablation]. Pathol Biol (Paris). 2004;52:566–74.CrossRef

30.

Douard MC, Arlet G, Longuet P, Troje C, Rouveau M, Ponscarme D, et al. Diagnosis of venous access port-related infections. Clin Infect Dis. 1999;29:1197–202.CrossRefPubMed

Title: Port type is a possible risk factor for implantable venous access port-related bloodstream infections and no sign of local infection predicts the growth of gram-negative bacilli
Authors: Jui-Feng Hsu
Hsu-Liang Chang
Ming-Ju Tsai
Ying-Ming Tsai
Yen-Lung Lee
Pei-Huan Chen
Wen-Chieh Fan
Yu-Chung Su
Chih-Jen Yang
Publication date: 01-12-2015
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: World Journal of Surgical Oncology / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1477-7819
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-015-0707-2

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Port type is a possible risk factor for implantable venous access port-related bloodstream infections and no sign of local infection predicts the growth of gram-negative bacilli

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

Resection of metachronous pancreatic cancer 4 years after pancreaticoduodenectomy for stage III pancreatic adenocarcinoma

The iatrogenic injury of double vena cava due to misdiagnosis during the radical nephroureterectomy and cystectomy

A multidisciplinary approach for peritoneal carcinomatosis and bilobar liver metastases from colorectal cancer: case report and review of the literature

Negative impact of low body mass index on liver cirrhosis patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

A modified Jarnagin-Blumgart classification better predicts survival for resectable hilar cholangiocarcinoma

Reduced miR-29a-3p expression is linked to the cell proliferation and cell migration in gastric cancer