Right- versus Left-Sided Chest Ports in Oncologic Patients with a History of Right-Sided Port Removal: Are There Any Differences in the Complication Rates?

Sun, Derek; Kobayashi, Katsuhiro; Samuel, Michael C.; Stewart, Glenn; Skummer, P.

doi:10.1016/j.jvir.2019.01.008

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There is a wide variety of studies that compare the incidence of intraoperative complications (hemothorax, hemopneumothorax or pinch-off syndrome, pneumothorax, nerve damage, arterial puncture and hematoma, wrong tip location in the internal thoracic vein, or in the collateral circulation with subsequent severe consequences) when different safety approaches are used ( 21 , 26 - 31 , 33 , 35 , 37 , 43 , 44 , 46 , 47 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pacemaker leads as a potential source of problems in patients who might need a central venous access port

Czajkowski,

Polewczyk,

Jacheć

et al. 2023

Cardiovasc Diagn Ther

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Lead-dependent venous occlusion may impede the insertion of a central venous access device (CVAD). The aim of this retrospective, cohort study was to assess the chance of implantation of CVAD in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). Methods We reviewed and analyzed 3,075 venograms of patients with CIEDs undergoing transvenous lead extraction (TLE) between June 2008 and July 2021. Relationship between venous patency and the chance of CVAD placement was estimated. Results In 2,318 (75.38%) patients, venography showed no potential obstacles to venous port implantation on the ipsilateral side. In patients with leads on the left side, significant narrowing more often affected the subclavian vein than the brachiocephalic vein [1,595 (55.29%) vs. 830 (28.63%), respectively] or the superior vena cava (SVC) [21 (0.73%) cases]. Furthermore, the subclavian and brachiocephalic veins on the opposite side were also narrowed [35 (2.35%) and 27 (1.24%), respectively]. The chances of port insertion were assessed as easy on CIED side or opposite side in 2,318 (75.38%) and 2,291 (97.91%) patients, respectively), as difficult insertion/questionable performance in 246 (8.00%) and 22 (0.94% patients) and doubtful or impossible insertion/questionable performance in 511 (16.62%)/27 (1.15%) patients with CIED. Conclusions (I) Varying degrees of lead-dependent venous obstruction (LDVO) is a frequent finding in patients with CIEDs; (II) the major thoracic veins on the opposite side of the chest may also be significantly narrowed; (III) venography should be considered before attempted CVAD insertion in patients with long lead dwell times or in patients after CIED removal, including planned contralateral port placement.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pacemaker leads as a potential source of problems in patients who might need a central venous access port

Czajkowski,

Polewczyk,

Jacheć

et al. 2023

Cardiovasc Diagn Ther

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The Laterality of Port Catheter Placement in Breast Cancer Patients: Investigating the Impact of Side Selection

Farsiani,

Tayebi,

Parsa

et al. 2024

Indian J Surg Oncol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Impact of insertion into the left internal jugular vein in chemoport-associated infections: a retrospective single-center study of 1690 cases

Kim,

Song,

Kim

et al. 2024

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We analyzed chemoport insertion procedures to evaluate infectious morbidity and factors causing infection. This single-center retrospective study included 1690 cases of chemoport implantation between January 2017 and December 2020. Overall, chemoports were inserted in 1582 patients. The average duration of chemoport use was 481 days (range 1–1794, median 309). Infections occurred in 80 cases (4.7%), with 0.098 per 1000 catheter-days. Among the 80 cases in which chemoports were removed because of suspected infection, bacteria were identified in 48 (60%). Significantly more cases of left internal jugular vein punctures were noted in the infected group (15 [18.8%] vs. 147 [9.1%]; p = 0.004). Pulmonary embolism was significantly different between the infection groups (3 [3.8%] vs. 19 (1.2%), p = 0.048). The hazard ratio was 2.259 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.288–3.962) for the left internal jugular vein, 3.393 (95% CI 1.069–10.765) for pulmonary embolism, and 0.488 (95% CI 0.244–0.977) for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Using the right internal jugular vein rather than the left internal jugular vein when performing chemoport insertion might reduce subsequent infections.

show abstract

Right- versus Left-Sided Chest Ports in Oncologic Patients with a History of Right-Sided Port Removal: Are There Any Differences in the Complication Rates?

Cited by 4 publications

References 25 publications

Pacemaker leads as a potential source of problems in patients who might need a central venous access port

Pacemaker leads as a potential source of problems in patients who might need a central venous access port

The Laterality of Port Catheter Placement in Breast Cancer Patients: Investigating the Impact of Side Selection

Impact of insertion into the left internal jugular vein in chemoport-associated infections: a retrospective single-center study of 1690 cases

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About