Image-guided chemoport insertion by interventional radiologists: A single-center experience on periprocedural complications

Yazmin Yaacob; Dang V Nguyen; Zahiah Mohamed; A Razali A Ralib; Rozman Zakaria; Sobri Muda

doi:10.4103/0971-3026.116543

Indian Journal of Radiology and Imaging, Table of Contents

CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Indian J Radiol Imaging 2013; 23(02): 121-125
DOI: 10.4103/0971-3026.116543

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Image-guided chemoport insertion by interventional radiologists: A single-center experience on periprocedural complications

Yazmin Yaacob

Department of Radiology, Interventional Radiologist and Clinical Lecturer, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Center (UKMMC)

,

Dang V Nguyen

Clinical Fellow in Interventional Radiology, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Center (UKMMC)

,

Zahiah Mohamed

Interventional Radiologist and Clinical Lecturer, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Center (UKMMC)

,

A Razali A Ralib

Interventional Radiologist and Clinical Lecturer of International Islamic University, Kuantan

,

Rozman Zakaria

Interventional Radiologist and Clinical Lecturer, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Center (UKMMC)

,

Sobri Muda

Head of Endovascular and Interventional Unit, Department of Radiology, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Center (UKMMC)

› Author Affiliations

Abstract

PDF Download

Abstract

Purpose: To report our early experience in image-guided chemoport insertions by interventional radiologists. Materials and Methods: This was a cross-sectional study conducted in a tertiary center with 161 chemoport insertions done from June 2008 to June 2010. The chemoports were inserted either at the angiography suite or at the mobile operation theater unit. Ninety percent of the chemoports had right internal jugular vein (IJV) as the entry site. Other entry sites included the left IJV, subclavian veins and the inferior vena cava. Immediate and early complications were recorded. All insertions were performed under image guidance with the aid of ultrasound and fluoroscopy. Results: The technical success rate was 99.4%. In terms of immediate complications, there were only two cases of arterial puncture that resolved with local compression. No pneumothorax or air embolism was documented. Twenty-six early complications were recorded. The most common early complication was catheter blockage (12/161; 7.4%), followed by catheter-related infection (9/161; 5.6%). Other complications were catheter malposition, venous thrombosis and catheter dislodgement or leak. A total of 11 (6.8%) chemoports had to be removed within 30 days; most of them were due to infections that failed to respond to systemic antibiotic therapy. In terms of place of procedure, there were no significant differences in complication rates between the angiography suite and the mobile operation theater unit. Conclusion: Image-guided chemoport insertion by interventional radiologist gives low periprocedural complication rates. Using right IJV as the entry site, the image guidance gives good success rate with least complication.

Keywords

Central venous catheterization - complications - interventional radiology - vascular access ports

PDF (1001 kb)

References

References
1 Lorch H, Zwaan M, Kagel C, Weiss HD. Central venous access ports placed by interventional radiologists: Experience with 125 consecutive patients. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2001;24:180-4.
2 Teichgräber UK, Streitparth F, Steitparth F, Cho CH, Benter T, Gebauer B. A comparison of clinical outcomes with regular- and low-profile totally implanted central venous port systems. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2009; 32:975-9.
3 Lewis CA, Allen TE, Burke DR, Cardella JF, Citron SJ, Cole PE, et al. Quality improvement guidelines for central venous access. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2003;14:231-6.
4 Kim JT, Oh TY, Chang WH, Jeong YK. Clinical review and analysis of complications of totally implantable venous access devices for chemotherapy. Med Oncol 2012;29:1361-4.
5 Teichgräber UK, Kausche S, Nagel SN, Gebauer B. Outcome analysis in 3,160 implantations of radiologically guided placements of totally implantable central venous port systems. Eur Radiol 2011;21:1224-32.
6 Funaki B, Szymski GX, Hackworth CA, Rosenblum JD, Burke R, Chang T, et al. Radiologic placement of subcutaneous infusion chest ports for long-term central venous access. Am J Roentgenol 1997;169:1431-4.
7 Simpson KR, Hovsepian DM, Picus D. Interventional radiologic placement of chest wall ports: Results and complications in 161 consecutive placements. J Vasc Interv Radiol 1997;8:189-95.
8 Wolosker N, Yazbek G, Nishinari K, Malavolta LC, Munia MA, Langer M, et al. Totally implantable venous catheters for chemotherapy: Experience in 500 patients. Sao Paulo Med J 2004;122:147-51.
9 Shetty PC, Mody MK, Kastan DJ, Sharma RP, Burke MW, Venugopal C, et al. Outcome of 350 implanted chest ports placed by interventional radiologists. J Vasc Interv Radiol 1997;8:991-5.
10 Di Carlo I, Cordio S, La Greca G, Privitera G, Russello D, Puleo S, et al. Totally implantable venous access devices implanted surgically: A retrospective study on early and late complications. Arch Surg 2001;136:1050-3.
11 Charvát J, Linke Z, Horáèková M, Prausová J. Implantation of central venous ports with catheter insertion via the right internal jugular vein in oncology patients: Single center experience. Support Care Cancer 2006;14:1162-5.
12 Mermel LA, Allon M, Bouza E, Craven DE, Flynn P, O′Grady NP. Clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of intravascular catheter-related infection: 2009 update by the infectious diseases society of america. Clin Infect Dis 2009;49:1-45.
13 Tesselaar ME, Ouwerkerk J, Nooy MA, Rosendaal FR, Osanto S. Risk factors for catheter-related thrombosis in cancer patients. Eur J Cancer 2004;40:2253-9.