Comparison of Implantable Central Venous Ports:Subclavian Versus Juguler Access

Abstract

Anahtar KelimelerSantral Venöz Girişim, İmplante Edilebilir Port, Eksternal Juguler Ven, Subklavyen Ven. AbstractAim: Today, implantable central venous ports (ICVP) are increasingly used in oncology patients and provide easy vascular access for delivery of chemotherapy, other intravenous treatments, as fluids, blood products and parenteral nutrition solutions. In this study, we present our experience and comparison of efficacy and incidence of complications between subclavian versus jugular access in oncology patients and provide easy vascular access for delivery of chemotherapy. Material and Method: Three hundred ten implantable central venous ports (ICVP) were implanted via the subclavian vein (SV) in 145 patients (66 men, 79 women) with average age of 56.55 (18-86) and were implanted via the external jugular vein (EJV) in 165 patients (75 men, 90 women) with average age of 56

Central venous access ports in the interventional radiology suite – one-centre experience

“…The most common intra-operative complication was pneumothorax (1.3%). The incidence of inadvertent arterial puncture and pneumothorax experienced in this study was consistent with the risk rates described in other studies in which anatomical-landmark-guided techniques and subclavian vein access sites were used [9, 14]. Different technical complications included failed puncture of the initially planned vein, prior to subsequent successful attempts at cannulation.…”

“…Placement of the catheter can be achieved through multiple routes. The most common access sites used are the IJV or SCV [4, 8, 9]. Ultrasound-guided puncture and surgical cut-down access through the cephalic vein at the deltoid-pectoralis groove are well-established alternatives for implantation [6].…”

“…Eighty-five percent of CVAP were placed on the right side of the chest in this study. The side of venous access was determined by the presence of unilateral breast carcinoma, the site of planned or completed irradiation, ulcerations on the chest wall, previous surgery or implanted pacemaker, structural anomalies, pre-existing unilateral venous thrombosis, or other circumstances related to personal preference [4, 6, 9].…”

Comparison of the outcomes of the implanted subcutaneous ports in cancer patients: six-years single center experience

“…A similar study by Aribas et al compared the IJV and SCV for patency times and complication rates and they pointed out that there was no difference between the 2 methods [4]. Another study comparing 145 patients with IJV to 165 EJV patients, and reported that the venous insertion site did not influence the early or late complication rates [5].…”