Placement of long-term central venous catheters in outpatients: study of 134 patients over 24,596 catheter days.

Damascelli, B; Patelli, Gianluigi; Frigerio, Laura; Lanocita, Rodolfo; Garbagnati, F; Marchianò, Alfonso; Spreafico, Carlo; Tolla, Giuseppe Di; Monfardini, Lorenzo; Porcelli, Gaetana

doi:10.2214/ajr.168.5.9129419

Cited by 57 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…[4][5][6][7] Uygulamalarımızda yalnız-ca 2 (%2.43) hastada port ile ilişkili enfeksiyon ge- nede radyoopakt verilerek kontrol edildi. Hastaların 12'sinde kateterden radyoopakt madde rahatlık-la verilebilmesine ve VCS'da opakt madde görüle-bilmesine rağmen kan aspire edilemedi.…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

Venous Port Implantation in Adult Patients: Retrospective Evaluation

Süslü¹,

Arslan²,

Tural³

2012

Agri

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Objectives ÖzetAmaç: Kanser tedavisinde sık sık venöz giriş yapılması, tedavinin uzun süreli olması, sklerozan ajanların kullanılması ve fazla miktarda sıvı verilmesi nedeni ile son yıllarda tedavilerinin uygulanmasında santral venöz giriş araçlarının rolü artmıştır. Kemoterapi portları göğüs veya koldaki ven içersine cerrahi olarak yerleştirilen ince, yumuşak, plastik tüplerdir. Port kateteri bü-yük ölçülere sahip değildir ve oldukça fazla avantaj sağlamaktadır. Bununla birlikte kateterlerin enfeksiyon, tromboz, mekanik bozukluk, pnömotoraks ve arteriyel yaralanma gibi riskleri vardır.

show abstract

Section: Discussionunclassified

Venous Port Implantation in Adult Patients: Retrospective Evaluation

Süslü¹,

Arslan²,

Tural³

2012

Agri

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This makes them suitable for active patients and more acceptable cosmetically (Lokich et al, 1985;Biffi et al, 1998;Lyon et al, 1999). Peripheral ports have a lower risk of infection than CVAPD (Salem et al, 1993;Damascelli et al, 1997) and their insertion involves a minimal risk of pneumothorax and haemothorax. However, they have a shorter useful lifetime than CVAPD (Smith et al, 1998) and there is an increased risk of venous sclerosis following the use of cytotoxic agents (Slater et al, 1985), which makes them unsuitable for cancer patients receiving longerterm chemotherapy.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Central venous access port devices (CVAPD) are necessary for delivery of prolonged infusional chemotherapy or in patients with poor peripheral venous access. Previous studies of Hickman catheters report complication rates in about 45% of patients. Our aim was to assess the early and late complication rate, and duration that the CVAPD remained functional, following insertion by interventional radiologists in patients with solid tumours. A prospective study was undertaken in 110 consecutive patients who had insertion of 111 subclavian CVAPD. The median age of patients was 57 years (range 17 -83), 64 were females; 68 patients (61%) had gastrointestinal tumours and 25 (23%) had breast cancer. CVAPD were successfully implanted in all but one patient. There were four (4%) immediate major complications: thrombosis 2 and pneumothorax 2. Nine patients (8%) had bruising or pain. Four devices (4%) became infected. In total, 100 CVAPD (90%) were either removed as planned at the end of treatment (n ¼ 23) after a median 203 days, or remained in situ for a median of 237 days (7 -1133). Premature removal occurred in eight patients due to infection (n ¼ 4), thrombosis (n ¼ 3) or faulty device (n ¼ 1). Four patients were lost to follow-up. Radiological insertion of CVAPD is safe and convenient with low rates of complications.

show abstract

“…Image guidance virtually eliminates the risk of several complications reported with unguided placement: pneumothorax, hemothorax, hematoma attributed to arterial puncture, pericardial tamponade, air embolization, chylothorax, hydrothorax, nerve injury, arrhythmia, and catheter malposition (7,9). In the presented series, the technical success of image-guided catheterization were 100% in 48 patients, as in other radiologic series (4,5,7,15,18) whereas technical placement failure occurred in up to 10% of cases in the surgical series (8)(9)(10).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 51%