Long-term Outcome of Peripherally Implanted Venous Access Ports in the Forearm in Female Cancer Patients

Klösges, Laura; Meyer, Carsten H.; Boschewitz, Jack M.; Andersson, Magnus; Rudlowski, Christian; Schild, Hans H.; Wilhelm, Kai

doi:10.1007/s00270-014-0975-1

Cited by 14 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Twenty-one 7,8,20,22,25,36,39,41,42,48,55,61,64,68,69,71,75,76,92,94,95 of the 69 noncomparison studies (23 cohorts, n = 12 265) reported VTE by number of thrombosis per 1000 catheter-days. Within these studies, the pooled rate of VTE was 0.08 (95% CI: 0.06-0.10) per 1000 catheter-days ( Figure S2).…”

Section: The Incidence Of Tivap-related Vtementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Additionally, compared with Hickman catheters, we also detect a trend for lower risk of VTE in the TIVAP groups (OR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.37-1.50), but the result was not significant (P = .413). The results were Preferred venous access site Upper-extremity vein 7,19,20,25,30,31,41,42,59,64,67,69,91 3 .029…”

Section: The Ors Of Tivap-associated Vtementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Retrospective 7,19,20,25,30,31,33,38,39,41,42,45,50,52,54,56,57,59,61,64 Port sites Chest ports 19,24,31,33,34,36,38,39,42,48,[50][51][52][53][54]57,61,64,68,[73][74][75][76] .702…”

Section: The Ors Of Tivap-associated Vtementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Peripheral ports 7,19,20,25,30,31,41,42,59,64,67,69 7,8,20,24,25,30,31,34,36,38,39,41,42,45,48,[50][51][52][53][54]56 2. .381…”

Section: The Ors Of Tivap-associated Vtementioning

confidence: 99%

“…2001-2009 [50][51][52][53][54]56,57,59,61,64,92 Material of catheter Silicone 7,24,25,36,48,56,57,59,69,71,74,76,79 2.…”

Section: The Ors Of Tivap-associated Vtementioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Risk of venous thromboembolism associated with totally implantable venous access ports in cancer patients: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Jiang

Pan

et al. 2020

Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Totally implantable venous access ports (TIVAPs) for chemotherapy are associated with venous thromboembolism (VTE). We aimed to quantify the incidence of TIVAP‐associated VTE and compare it with external central venous catheters (CVCs) in cancer patients through a meta‐analysis. Methods Studies reporting on VTE risk associated with TIVAP were retrieved from medical literature databases. In publications without a comparison group, the pooled incidence of TIVAP‐related VTE was calculated. For studies comparing TIVAPs with external CVCs, odds ratios (ORs) were calculated to assess the risk of VTE. Results In total, 80 studies (11 with a comparison group and 69 without) including 39 148 patients were retrieved. In the noncomparison studies, the overall symptomatic VTE incidence was 2.76% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.24‐3.28), and 0.08 (95 CI: 0.06‐0.10) per 1000 catheter‐days. This risk was highest when TIVAPs were inserted via the upper‐extremity vein (3.54%, 95% CI: 2.94‐4.76). Our meta‐analysis of the case‐control studies showed that TIVAPs were associated with a decreased risk of VTE compared with peripherally inserted central catheters (OR = 0.20, 95% CI: 0.09‐0.43), and a trend for lower VTE risk compared with Hickman catheters (OR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.37‐1.50). Meta‐regression models suggested that regional difference may significantly impact on the incidence of VTE associated with TIVAPs. Conclusions Current evidence suggests that the cancer patients with TIVAP are less likely to develop VTE compared with external CVCs. This should be considered when choosing the indwelling intravenous device for chemotherapy. However, more attention should be paid when choosing upper‐extremity veins as the insertion site.

show abstract

Section: The Incidence Of Tivap-related Vtementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Ors Of Tivap-associated Vtementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Retrospective 7,19,20,25,30,31,33,38,39,41,42,45,50,52,54,56,57,59,61,64 Port sites Chest ports 19,24,31,33,34,36,38,39,42,48,[50][51][52][53][54]57,61,64,68,[73][74][75][76] .702…”

Section: The Ors Of Tivap-associated Vtementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Peripheral ports 7,19,20,25,30,31,41,42,59,64,67,69 7,8,20,24,25,30,31,34,36,38,39,41,42,45,48,[50][51][52][53][54]56 2. .381…”

Section: The Ors Of Tivap-associated Vtementioning

confidence: 99%

“…2001-2009 [50][51][52][53][54]56,57,59,61,64,92 Material of catheter Silicone 7,24,25,36,48,56,57,59,69,71,74,76,79 2.…”

Section: The Ors Of Tivap-associated Vtementioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Risk of venous thromboembolism associated with totally implantable venous access ports in cancer patients: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Jiang

Pan

et al. 2020

Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Living with a peripherally inserted central catheter: the perspective of cancer outpatients—a qualitative study

Parás‐Bravo

Paz-Zulueta

Santibáñez

et al. 2017

Support Care Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe aim of this study was to describe the experience of using a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) in cancer sufferers receiving outpatient treatment.MethodsA qualitative, phenomenological study was performed. Purposeful sampling methods were used. Data collection methods included semi-structured interviews and researcher field notes. Thematic analysis was used to analyze data. The study was conducted following the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research guidelines.ResultsEighteen patients (61% women, mean age 58 years) participated. They spent a mean duration of 155 days with the line in place. Two themes were identified with different subgroups. The theme “Living with a PICC line,” including the subthemes “Benefits” and “Disadvantages,” displays how the implantation is experienced by patients in a dichotomous manner. This highlighted both the beneficial and negative aspects of the implantation. The second theme was “Adapting to life with the catheter” and comprised three subthemes: “Advantages,” “Lifestyle modifications,” and “Overall assessment of the peripherally inserted central catheter,” which shows how patients gradually accept the catheter by adapting their lifestyle.ConclusionsOver time, most patients considered having a PICC line to be a positive experience that they would recommend to other patients, as they found that it did not alter their quality of life. These results can be applied in Oncology Units for developing specific protocols for patients.

show abstract

Radiology Implanted Forearm Ports: A Review of the Literature

Burbridge

Chan

Bryce

et al. 2017

Journal of the Association for Vascular Access

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Insertion of totally implanted venous access devices; that is, port systems, in the forearm is an option for long-term venous access. To better understand the radiology literature reported for this anatomic location, we performed a search for, and an analysis of, previous publications related to forearm implantation of these devices by interventional radiology department personnel. Materials and Methods: A review of the literature was performed for articles describing radiology implantation of forearm ports. Articles published between 1990 and 2015 were reviewed. Results: Eleven articles were found that met the review criteria. None were randomized studies and only 1 was a prospective study. All of the other studies were retrospective reviews of a variety of different port devices. An analysis of these articles was performed. Conclusions: Forearm port implantation had high technical success rates (range, 98%–100%; mean, 99.7%). A wide variety of complications were encountered, none of which exceeded the Society of Interventional Radiology threshold levels for complications associated with port insertion. A subset of the studies were upper arm venipunctures with the port catheter and housing subsequently implanted in the forearm distal to the antecubital fossa.

show abstract

Long-term Outcome of Peripherally Implanted Venous Access Ports in the Forearm in Female Cancer Patients

Abstract: Peripherally implanted venous access ports in the forearm are a safe alternative to chest or upper-arm ports in female oncology patients. Special attention should be paid to signs of skin dehiscence and nonthrombotic dysfunction, especially when used for long-term treatment.

Cited by 14 publications

References 34 publications

Risk of venous thromboembolism associated with totally implantable venous access ports in cancer patients: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Risk of venous thromboembolism associated with totally implantable venous access ports in cancer patients: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Living with a peripherally inserted central catheter: the perspective of cancer outpatients—a qualitative study

Radiology Implanted Forearm Ports: A Review of the Literature

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About