Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Indian J Med Paediatr Oncol 2013; 34(04): 238-241
DOI: 10.4103/0971-5851.125234
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

A retrospective study of central venous catheters GCRI experience

Sachin A. Jain
Department of Medical and Pediatric Oncology, Gujarat Cancer and Research Institute, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India
,
Shilin N. Shukla
Department of Medical and Pediatric Oncology, Gujarat Cancer and Research Institute, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India
,
Shailesh S. Talati
Department of Medical and Pediatric Oncology, Gujarat Cancer and Research Institute, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India
,
Sonia K. Parikh
Department of Medical and Pediatric Oncology, Gujarat Cancer and Research Institute, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India
,
Shivani J. Bhatt
Department of Medical and Pediatric Oncology, Gujarat Cancer and Research Institute, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India
,
Vinayak Maka
Department of Medical and Pediatric Oncology, Gujarat Cancer and Research Institute, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
  PDF Download Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background: The use of central venous catheters (CVCs) has greatly improved the quality-of-care in cancer patients, yet these catheters may cause serious infectious and thrombotic complications. The aim of this retrospective study was to study the various types of CVCs and their complications. Materials and Methods: We studied retrospectively 213 cases of CVCs in our institute with their indications, type and complications from August 2010 to July 2011. Results: A total of 213 CVCs were inserted in patients with hematological (62%) and solid organ malignancies (38%). Ninety-eight patients (46%) had peripheral inserted central catheter (PICC), 90 (42%) patients had Hickman catheters and 25 (12%) had a port. The median duration of retention of Hickman catheters was 104 days (3-365 days), for the peripherally inserted central catheters was 59 days (3-100 days) and for the port it was 280 days (45-365 days). Non-infective complications were more than infective (12% vs. 7%). The most common complication was non-infective occlusion and thrombophlebitis. In one patient with PICC thrombosis occurred in the cephalic, radial and ulnar vein and in one patient with port thrombosis occurred in the superior vena cava. Organisms were isolated in 60% (12 out of 20) of cultures. Common organisms isolated were Pseudomonas aeruginosa in 5 (42%), Staphylococcus aureus in 2 (16%), Escherichia coli in 2 (16%) and Aspergillus in 3 (25%) patients. 7 out of 12 infected patients had negative blood cultures within 7 days of antibiotic treatment, 5 patients remained positive for more than 7 days with antibiotics. In 155 patients (73%), the desired treatment protocol was completed and at present there are still 28 patients (13%) with catheters. 5 patients (2.3%) died of febrile neutropenia and septicemia with multi-organ failure. In 5 patients (2.3%), the catheters (1 Port, 1 Hickman and 3 PICC) were prematurely removed because of thrombosis. Conclusion: CVCs are better options to facilitate the long-term vascular access provided infection is prevented with meticulous care and treated promptly with proper antibiotics. Most CVCs is acceptable to patients.

Keywords

Central venous catheter - chemo port - Hickman central venous catheter - peripheral inserted central catheter


Publication History

Article published online:
19 July 2021

© 2013. Indian Society of Medical and Paediatric Oncology. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Cameron GS. Central venous catheters for children with malignant disease: Surgical issues. J Pediatr Surg 1987;22:702-4.
  • 2 Iannacci L, Piomelli S. Supportive care for children with cancer. Guidelines of the childrens cancer study group. Use of venous access lines. Am J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 1984;6:277-81.
  • 3 Biffi R, de Braud F, Orsi F, Pozzi S, Mauri S, Goldhirsch A, et al. Totally implantable central venous access ports for long-term chemotherapy. A prospective study analyzing complications and costs of 333 devices with a minimum follow-up of 180 days. Ann Oncol 1998;9:767-73.
  • 4 Scott WL. Central venous catheters. An overview of food and drug administration activities. Surg Oncol Clin N Am 1995;4:377-93.
  • 5 Ryder MA. Peripheral access options. Surg Oncol Clin N Am 1995;4:395-427.
  • 6 Pratt RJ, Pellowe CM, Wilson JA, Loveday HP, Harper PJ, Jones SR, et al. epic2: National evidence-based guidelines for preventing healthcare-associated infections in NHS Hospitals in England. J Hosp Infect 2007;65 Suppl 1:S1-64.
  • 7 King MM, Rasnake MS, Rodriguez RG, Riley NJ, Stamm JA. Peripherally inserted central venous catheter-associated thrombosis: Retrospective analysis of clinical risk factors in adult patients. South Med J 2006;99:1073-7.
  • 8 Kim HJ, Yun J, Kim HJ, Kim KH, Kim SH, Lee SC, et al. Safety and effectiveness of central venous catheterization in patients with cancer: Prospective observational study. J Korean Med Sci 2010;25:1748-53.
  • 9 Nirni SS. Study of various types of central venous catheters with respect to their complications. Indian J Med Pediatr Oncol 2002;23:21-4.
  • 10 Sarin J. Utility of central venous access devices in oncology. GCRI; 2004. (Unpublished data).
  • 11 Winters V, Peters B, Coilá S, Jones L. A trial with a new peripheral implanted vascular access device. Oncol Nurs Forum 1990;17:891-6.
  • 12 Mansfield PF, Hohn DC, Fornage BD, Gregurich MA, Ota DM. Complications and failures of subclavian-vein catheterization. N Engl J Med 1994;331:1735-8.