Evaluation of Correlations between Underlying Disease and Port Complications

 

 Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Purpose: Evaluation of correlations between underlying disease and port complications.

Materials and Methods: Retrospective analysis of a data set of 3160 port systems, which had been interventionally implanted over a period of 10 years. Of these, 1393 were included in the final evaluation. The 7 most common underlying diseases and port-induced complications were considered. Port-related thrombotic events, port pocket infections as well as the port-induced sepsis were evaluated and classified as either early or late complications.

Results: In 1393 ports, 131 experienced complications. Of these, 22.1 % (n = 29) were early and 79.6 % (n = 102) late complications. The overall incidence rate of late complications was 0.253/1000 observed days. It differed significantly between the underlying diseases (p < 0.001) and was significantly lower in colon carcinoma when compared with pancreatic (p = 0.049), gastric (p = 0.012) and bronchial carcinoma (p = 0.042). The incidence rate of the port sepsis between the underlying diseases also differed significantly (p = 0.006) and had the highest rate in gastric and bronchial carcinoma. The occurrence of a thrombotic event also showed a significant difference in the incidence rates between the underlying diseases (p = 0.045) and was highest in pancreatic and gastric carcinoma.

Conclusion: There are significant differences in the incidences of complications between the underlying diseases. Knowledge about this can help to improve the port-care and to take specific preventive measures.

Key Points:

• significant differences in the incidences of port complications between underlying diseases

• incidence rate of late complications significantly lower in colon carcinoma compared to pancreatic, gastric and bronchial carcinoma

• highest incidence rate of port sepsis in gastric and bronchial carcinoma

• highest incidence rate of thrombotic events in pancreatic and gastric carcinoma

• studies on specific prophylactic measures required

Citation Format:

Teichgräber U, Nagel SN, Kausche S Evaluation of Correlations between Underlying Disease and Port Complications. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2014; 186: 496 – 500

Zusammenfassung

Ziel: Evaluation von Zusammenhängen zwischen Grunderkrankung und Portkomplikationen.

Material und Methode: Retrospektive Auswertung aus einem Gesamtdatensatz von 3160 Portsystemen, welche über einen Zeitraum von 10 Jahren interventionsradiologisch implantiert worden waren. Von diesen gingen 1393 in die endgültige Auswertung ein. Die 7 häufigsten Grunderkrankungen und portinduzierte Komplikationen wurden gegenübergestellt. Betrachtet wurden dabei portbedingte thrombotische Ereignisse, Porttascheninfektionen und die portinduzierte Sepsis, wobei Früh- und Spätkomplikationen unterschieden wurden.

Ergebnisse: Bei 1393 Ports traten 131 Komplikationen auf. Hiervon waren 22,1 % (n = 29) Früh- und 79,6 % (n = 102) Spätkomplikationen. Die Gesamtinzidenzrate der Spätkomplikationen betrug 0,253/1000 Beobachtungstage. Sie unterschied sich signifikant zwischen den einzelnen Grunderkrankungen (p < 0,001) und zeigte beim Kolonkarzinomen eine signifikant niedrigere Inzidenzrate gegenüber dem Pankreas- (p = 0,049), dem Magen- (p = 0,012) und dem Bronchialkarzinom (p = 0,042). Die Inzidenzrate der Portsepsis zwischen den Grunderkrankungen unterschied sich ebenfalls signifikant (p = 0,006) und war beim Magen- sowie Bronchialkarzinom am größten. Für das Auftreten eines thrombotischen Ereignisses zeigte sich ebenfalls ein signifikanter Unterschied der Inzidenzraten zwischen den einzelnen Grunderkrankungen (p = 0,045) und war dabei beim Pankreas- sowie Magenkarzinom am größten.

Schlussfolgerung: Es bestehen signifikante Unterschiede der Inzidenzen von Komplikationen zwischen den einzelnen Grunderkrankungen. Das Wissen hierüber kann helfen, die Portpflege zu verbessern und ggf. gezielte, präventive Maßnahmen zu ergreifen.

• References

• 1 Moureau N, Poole S, Murdock MA et al. Central venous catheters in home infusion care: outcomes analysis in 50470 patients. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2002; 13: 1009-1016
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Wieners G, Redlich U, Dudeck O et al. First experiences with intravenous port systems authorized for high pressure injection of contrast agent in multiphasic computed tomography. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2009; 181: 664-668
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Gebauer B, El-Sheik M, Vogt M et al. Combined ultrasound and fluoroscopy guided port catheter implantation--high success and low complication rate. Eur J Radiol 2009; 69: 517-522
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Lenhart M, Schatzler S, Manke C et al. Radiological placement of peripheral central venous access ports at the forearm. Technical results and long term outcome in 391 patients. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2010; 182: 20-28
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Teichgraber UK, Nagel SN, Kausche S et al. Clinical benefit of power-injectable port systems: a prospective observational study. Eur J Radiol 81: 528-533
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Teichgraber UK, Kausche S, Nagel SN et al. Outcome analysis in 3160 implantations of radiologically guided placements of totally implantable central venous port systems. Eur Radiol 21: 1224-1232
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Vardy J, Engelhardt K, Cox K et al. 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. British journal of cancer 2004; 91: 1045-1049
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Wagner HJ, Teichgraber U, Gebauer B et al. Transjugular implantation of venous port catheter systems. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2003; 175: 1539-1544
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Chang DH, Boecker J, Hellmich M et al. Experiences with ultrasound-guided port implantations via the lateral subclavian vein: a retrospective analysis of 1532 patients. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2012; 184: 726-733
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Kausche S, Nagel SN, Teichgraber U. Interventional radiological imaging and treatment of port catheter dysfunctions. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2011; 183: 260-266
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Teichgraber UK, Gebauer B, Benter T et al. Long-term central venous lines and their complications. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2004; 176: 944-952
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Teichgraber UK, Gebauer B, Benter T et al. Central venous access catheters: radiological management of complications. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2003; 26: 321-333
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Groeger JS, Lucas AB, Thaler HT et al. Infectious morbidity associated with long-term use of venous access devices in patients with cancer. Ann Intern Med 1993; 119: 1168-1174
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Pagano L, Tacconelli E, Tumbarello M et al. Bacteremia in patients with hematological malignancies. Analysis of risk factors, etiological agents and prognostic indicators. Haematologica 1997; 82: 415-419
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Wun T, White RH. Venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with cancer: epidemiology and risk factors. Cancer Invest 2009; 27: 63-74
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Kakkar AK, Levine M, Pinedo HM et al. Venous thrombosis in cancer patients: insights from the FRONTLINE survey. Oncologist 2003; 8: 381-388
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Silberzweig JE, Sacks D, Khorsandi AS et al. Reporting standards for central venous access. Technology Assessment Committee. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2000; 11: 391-400
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Hsieh CC, Weng HH, Huang WS et al. Analysis of risk factors for central venous port failure in cancer patients. World J Gastroenterol 2009; 15: 4709-4714
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Biffi R, Orsi F, Pozzi S et al. Best choice of central venous insertion site for the prevention of catheter-related complications in adult patients who need cancer therapy: a randomized trial. Annals of oncology: official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology/ESMO 2009; 20: 935-940
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 Caers J, Fontaine C, Vinh-Hung V et al. Catheter tip position as a risk factor for thrombosis associated with the use of subcutaneous infusion ports. Support Care Cancer 2005; 13: 325-331
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 Chew HK, Wun T, Harvey D et al. Incidence of venous thromboembolism and its effect on survival among patients with common cancers. Arch Intern Med 2006; 166: 458-464
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 22 Noble S, Pasi J. Epidemiology and pathophysiology of cancer-associated thrombosis. Br J Cancer 102: S2-S9
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 23 Wun T, White RH. Epidemiology of cancer-related venous thromboembolism. Best Pract Res Clin Haematol 2009; 22: 9-23
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 24 Nakazawa N. Infectious and thrombotic complications of central venous catheters. Semin Oncol Nurs 2010; 26: 121-131
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 25 White RH, Chew H, Wun T. Targeting patients for anticoagulant prophylaxis trials in patients with cancer: who is at highest risk?. Thromb Res 2007; 120: S29-S40
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 26 Dutia M, White RH, Wun T. Risk assessment models for cancer-associated venous thromboembolism. Cancer 118: 3468-3476
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 27 Streiff MB. Diagnosis and initial treatment of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 4889-4894
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 28 Cunningham MS, Preston RJ, O'Donnell JS. Does antithrombotic therapy improve survival in cancer patients?. Blood Rev 2009; 23: 129-135
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 29 Toure A, Vanhems P, Lombard-Bohas C et al. Totally implantable central venous access port infections in patients with digestive cancer: Incidence and risk factors. Am J Infect Control 2012; 40: 935-939
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 30 Aitken DR, Minton JP. The “pinch-off sign”: a warning of impending problems with permanent subclavian catheters. Am J Surg 1984; 148: 633-636
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 31 Hinke DH, Zandt-Stastny DA, Goodman LR et al. Pinch-off syndrome: a complication of implantable subclavian venous access devices. Radiology 1990; 177: 353-356
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 32 Dumichen MJ, Seeger K, Lode HN et al. Randomized controlled trial of taurolidine citrate versus heparin as catheter lock solution in paediatric patients with haematological malignancies. J Hosp Infect 2012; 80: 304-309
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 33 Gilbert RE, Harden M. Effectiveness of impregnated central venous catheters for catheter related blood stream infection: a systematic review. Curr Opin Infect Dis 2008; 21: 235-245
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

• Supplementary Material