1 Division of General Surgery, European Institute of Oncology, Milan; 2 Division of Clinical Hematoncology, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy
Received 30 April 2003; revised 26 August 2003; accepted 5 September 2003
![]() |
ABSTRACT |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
The complication rate of central venous totally implantable access ports (TIAP), used for high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplantation support, has not been fully investigated to date, due to the almost exclusive use of externalised, tunnelled devices in this clinical setting.
Patients and methods:
During a 66-month period (from 1 January 1997 to 30 June 2002), 376 patients suffering from breast cancer, ovarian cancer, lymphoma or multiple myeloma were treated with high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation at the European Institute of Oncology (Milan, Italy). A single type of port was used, constructed from titanium and silicone rubber, connected to a 7.8 F polyurethane catheter (Port-A-CathTM; SIMS Deltec, Inc., St Paul, MN, USA) inserted into the subclavian vein. They were followed prospectively for device-related complications until the device was removed, the patient died or the study was closed (30 June 2002).
Results:
No TIAP-related deaths were observed in this series. Seven pneumothoraxes (1.8%) occurred as a complication of TIAP placement, one patient only (0.2%) requiring a tube thoracostomy. Port pocket infection occurred twice in this series (0.53%, 0.01 episodes/1000 days of use), whereas three patients suffered from port-related bacteraemia (0.8%, 0.016/1000 days of use). Infections were successfully treated with antibiotics; all three cases had the ports removed at programme completion. Four cases of deep vein thrombosis were detected (1.06%, 0.022/1000 days of use); low molecular weight heparin was given, followed by oral anticoagulants. Finally, one case of extravasation occurred (0.26%, 0.005/1000 days of use), requiring port removal and local medical therapy.
Conclusions:
The use of TIAPs has resulted in a safe and effective option for high-dose chemotherapy deliverance and stem cell transplantation, in spite of inducing severe neutropenia and increasing the risk of sepsis in this category of oncology patient.
Key words: central venous catheters, high-dose chemotherapy, peripheral blood stem cells transplantation, ports
![]() |
Introduction |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
![]() |
Patients and methods |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
|
Blood screening for bacteraemia was not performed at regular intervals since blood sampling for microbiology was obtained when clinically suggested (unexplained fever and/or signs of sepsis). Intravenous antimicrobial therapy, including amikacine and ceftazidime, was initiated empirically in febrile neutropenic patients suffering from lymphoma or myeloma, whereas piperacillintazobactam was used for patients affected by solid tumours. An appropriate systemic antibiotic therapy was subsequently started, based on the susceptibilities of the isolate, if any. Criteria for the diagnosis of device-related bacteraemia were defined as follows: a, a >10-fold increase in colony-forming units (c.f.u.) of bacteria per ml of blood obtained through the device in comparison to peripheral blood cultures; b, >1000 c.f.u. of bacteria obtained through the device, in the absence of peripheral blood cultures; or c, positive catheter tip culture upon removal in the appropriate clinical setting. Device-related bacteraemia was considered cured when culture results were negative at the discontinuation of antimicrobial therapy and no evidence of clinical infection occurred in the following 2 weeks.
Port pocket infection was defined as induration, erythema and tenderness around the port with culture-positive material aspirated from the port pocket. Cutaneous site infection was defined as induration, erythema, or tenderness and exudate at the port surface needle access site.
Thrombosis was detected with ultrasound and/or venography when clinically suggested by progressive arm or facial swelling. Prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism (i.e. daily minidose oral warfarin or subcutaneous low molecular weight heparin) was not applied in this study population.
![]() |
Results |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
|
Late complications
Late complications observed in this study are listed in Table 3. Port pocket infection occurred twice in this series (0.53%, 0.01 episodes/1000 days of use); the causative agent was not identified in one case by laboratory tests, although a purulent discharge was collected from the ports subcutaneous pocket. The other case was caused by Staphylococcus epidermidis. The devices were removed and the infection successfully cured, with no additional morbidity.
|
Four cases of deep vein thrombosis have been detected (1.06%, 0.022/1000 days of port use), at varying intervals after port placement (range 1435 days). Low molecular weight heparin was given, then to obtain a therapeutic INR (International Normalized Ratio), oral anticoagulants were administered for 3 months. Ports were always removed. Finally, one case of extravasation occurred (0.26%, 0.005/1000 days of port use), requiring port removal and local medical therapy. All patients received therapeutic support through the port, such as antiemetics, fluids, platelets and red blood cells transfusions, and antibiotics; blood samples were regularly collected. No problems were reported during or following these procedures. In only 12 of 376 cases has it been necessary to apply 25 000 IU urokinase to remove fibrin from the catheter and restore normal flow through the device.
After discharge of the patient, washing the TIAP just once every 3 months with normal saline maintained its complete functionality.
![]() |
Discussion |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
In a randomised study of infectious morbidity in patients with solid tumours, TIAP have been shown to be associated with fewer infections than were catheters [12]. Most often, these septic events respond to the appropriate antibiotics without the need for catheter withdrawal [13, 14]; removal may be necessary for persistent or recurrent bacteraemia or for fungal infections. In spite of an accurate implant procedure and appropriate post-implantation care, catheter-related infections are reported in 1145% of patients with Hickman catheters [10, 14, 15], 022% of patients with TIAP [7, 10, 1618] and 732% of patients with Groshong catheters [Bard Inc., Salt Lake City, UT; 14, 16, 1922]. BMT recipients are particularly prone to developing catheter-related infectious complications; usually they exceed 20% for subcutaneous tunnelled devices [8, 23]. Non-tunnelled catheters have been recently proposed for patients undergoing BMT [24] as they can be easily inserted and withdrawn without surgery; conversely, they exhibited a 15% catheter-related infection rate. Data from our study, derived from a large, prospective, non-randomised study, support the conclusions of most retrospective papers: the infectious morbidity related to TIAP is very low, even in patients undergoing HDCT. Compared with externalised catheters, TIAP are irrigated less frequently, require no home care and are less prone to environmental or cutaneous contamination when not accessed. All these factors may contribute to the reduced incidence of infections associated with TIAP. It should be underlined that 75% of the patients we have treated suffered from solid tumours (Table 1), with relatively short durations of neutropenia. As the majority of studies using Hickman catheters (i.e. tunnelled central venous externalised catheters) refer to haematology/oncology patients with longer neutropenia, this may in part explain the good results obtained here.
The incidence of catheter-related symptomatic venous thrombosis has been quite low in this study (Table 3); no useful data are available from retrospective analyses of clinical and autopsy reports in the medical literature, where the incidence varied from 0 to 50% [25, 26]. In a controlled randomised trial, prospective venography was performed as part of a study of prophylactic low-dose warfarin treatment, with a symptomatic thrombosis rate in untreated patients of 12.5% and an overall rate (symptomatic plus silent) of 38% (15 of 40) [27]. Another prospective study in cancer patients using the same device (Port-a-CathTM subclavian venous catheter) reported a rate of upper extremity deep vein thrombosis of 62% in the control group, and 6% in patients taking 2500 IU subcutaneous FragminTM once daily for 90 days (relative risk, 6.75; P = 0.002, Fishers exact test [28]). Clinical data derived from our study are not fully comparable, due to differences in the patient populations and absence of regular ultrasound scans or phlebografic monitoring, thus limiting the diagnosis of venous thrombosis to clinically relevant cases; however, they do not support the routine use of low dose anticoagulants in patients bearing a TIAP [29], at least in this clinical setting (high-dose chemotherapy and PBSCT).
The possibility of reinfusing PBSC and transfusing platelets and blood from the TIAP without any significant complications has been confirmed by this study, thus demonstrating a new use for this kind of device. However, it should be noted that single-lumen TIAPs can not be used for apheresis; it was performed in our series through peripheral veins whenever feasible, and a double-line, 14 F polyurethane catheter was inserted in the internal jugular vein as a bedside procedure when peripheral veins were not suitable for apheresis.
In conclusion, the use of totally implantable ports has resulted in a good option for long-term access to central veins and delivery of high-dose chemotherapeutic regimens with concomitant autotransplantation of stem cells, in spite of severe neutropenia and increased risk of sepsis in this category of oncology patients. Although multicentre randomised clinical trials are needed to define the optimal device in this clinical setting, the results of this prospective, non-randomised study support the wider use of TIAP in oncology patients undergoing HDCT and autologous stem cells transplantation.
![]() |
Acknowledgements |
---|
![]() |
FOOTNOTES |
---|
![]() |
REFERENCES |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
2. Hickman RO, Buckner CD, Clift RA et al. A modified right atrial catheter for access to the venous system in marrow transplant recipients. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1979; 148: 871875.[ISI][Medline]
3. Biffi R, Martinelli G, Pozzi S et al. Totally implantable central venous access ports for high-dose chemotherapy administration and autologous stem cell transplantation: analysis of overall and septic complications in 68 cases using a single type of device. Bone Marrow Transplant 1999; 24: 8993.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
4. Moosa HH, Julian TB, Rosenfeld CS, Shadduck RK. Complications of indwelling central venous catheters in bone marrow transplant recipients. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1991; 172: 275279.[ISI][Medline]
5. Raad I, Davis S, Becker M et al. Low infection rate and long durability of nontunneled silastic catheters. A safe and cost-effective alternative for long-term vascular access. Arch Intern Med 1993; 153: 17911796.[Abstract]
6. Brothers TE, Von Moll LK, Niederhuber JE et al. Experience with subcutaneous infusion ports in the three hundred patients. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1988; 166: 295301.[ISI][Medline]
7. Biffi R, De Braud F, Orsi F et al. Totally implantable central venous access ports for long-term chemotherapy. A prospective study analyzing complications and costs in 333 devices with a minimum 180 days of follow-up. Ann Oncol 1998; 9: 767773.[Abstract]
8. Keung YK, Watkins K, Chen SC et al. Increased incidence of central venous catheter-related infections in bone marrow transplant patients. Am J Clin Oncol 1995; 18: 469474.[ISI][Medline]
9. Greene FL, Moore W, Strikland G, McFarland J. Comparison of a totally implantable access device for chemotherapy (Port-A-Cath) and long-term percutaneous catheterization (Broviac). South Med J 1988; 81: 580583.[ISI][Medline]
10. Mueller BU, Skelton J, Callender DPE et al. A prospective randomized trial comparing the infectious and noninfectious complications of an externalized catheter versus a subcutaneously implanted device in cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 1992; 10: 19431948.[Abstract]
11. Morrison VA, Peterson BA, Bloomfield CD. Nosocomial septicemia in the cancer patient: the influence of central venous access devices, neutropenia and type of malignancy. Med Pediatr Oncol 1990; 18: 209216.[ISI][Medline]
12. 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: 11681174.
13. Simon C, Suttorp M. Results of antibiotic treatment of Hickman-catheter-related infections in oncological patients. Support Care Cancer 1994; 2: 6670.[ISI][Medline]
14. Pasquale MD, Campbell JM, Magnant CM. Groshong versus Hickman catheters. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1992; 174: 408410.[ISI][Medline]
15. Stanislav GV, Fitzgibbons RJ, Bailey RT et al. Reliability of implantable central venous access devices in patients with cancer. Arch Surg 1987; 122: 12801283.[Abstract]
16. Gleeson NC, Fiorica JV, Mark JE et al. Externalized Groshong catheters and Hickman ports for central venous access in gynecologic oncology patients. Gynecol Oncol 1993; 51: 372376.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
17. Koonings PP, Given FT. Long term experience with a totally implanted catheter system in gynecologic oncologic patients. J Am Coll Surg 1994; 178: 164166.[ISI][Medline]
18. Biffi R, De Braud F, Orsi F et al. A randomized, prospective trial of central venous ports connected to standard open-ended or Groshong catheters in adult oncology patients. Cancer 2001; 92: 12041212.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
19. Malviya VK, Gunter D, Gove N, Malone JM Jr. Vascular access in gynecologic cancer using the Groshong right atrial catheter. Gynecol Oncol 1989; 33: 313316.[ISI][Medline]
20. Delmore JE, Horbelt DV, Jack BL, Roberts RK. Experience with the Groshong long-term central venous catheter. Gynecol Oncol 1989; 34: 216218.[ISI][Medline]
21. Hull JE, Hunter CS, Luiken GA. The Groshong catheter: initial experience and early results of imaging-guided placement. Radiology 1992; 185: 803807.[Abstract]
22. Biffi R, Corrado F, De Braud F et al. Long-term totally implantable central venous access ports connected to a Groshong catheter for chemotherapy of solid tumours: experience from 178 cases using a single type of device. Eur J Cancer 1997; 33: 11901194.[CrossRef][Medline]
23. Uderzo G, DAngelo P, Rizzari C et al. Central venous catheter-related complications after bone marrow transplantation in children with hematological malignancies. Bone Marrow Transplant 1992; 9: 113117.[ISI][Medline]
24. Madero L, Ruano D, Villa M et al. Non-tunneled catheters in children undergoing bone marrow transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant 1996; 17: 8789.[ISI][Medline]
25. Horne MK III, May DJ, Alexander HR et al. Venographic surveillance of tunneled venous access devices in adult oncology patients. Ann Surg Oncol 1995; 2: 174178.[Abstract]
26. Haire WD, Lieberman RP, Edney J et al. Hickman catheter-induced thoracic vein thrombosis: frequency and long-term sequelae in patients receiving high-dose chemotherapy and marrow transplantation. Cancer 1990; 66: 900908.[ISI][Medline]
27. Bern MM, Lokich JJ, Wallach SR et al. Very low doses of warfarin can prevent thrombosis in central venous catheters. Ann Intern Med 1990; 112: 423428.[ISI][Medline]
28. Monreal M, Alastrue A, Rull M et al. Upper extremity deep vein thrombosis in cancer patients with venous access devicesprophylaxis with a low molecular weight heparin (Fragmin). Thromb Haemost 1996; 75: 251253.[ISI][Medline]
29. Heaton DC, Han DY, Inder A. Minidose (1 mg) warfarin as prophylaxis for central vein catheter thrombosis. Intern Med J 2002; 32: 8488.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]