Evaluation of the perceptions and cosmetic satisfaction of breast cancer patients undergoing totally implantable vascular access device (TIVAD) placement

Background and objectives: The increasing use of arm totally implantable vascular access devices for breast cancer patients who require chemotherapy has led to a greater risk of complications and failures and, in particular, to upper extremity deep vein thrombosis. This study aims to investigate the outcomes of the arm peripherally inserted central catheter-PORT technique in breast cancer patients. Methods: The peripherally inserted central catheter-PORT technique is an evolution of the standard arm-totally implantable vascular access device implant based on guided ultrasound venous access in the proximal third of the upper limb with subsequent placement of the reservoir at the middle third of the arm. A prospective study was conducted on 418 adult female breast cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. The primary study outcome was peripherally inserted central catheter-PORT failure. Results: Median follow-up was 215 days. Complications occurred in 29 patients (6.9%) and failure resulting in removal of the device in 11 patients (2.6%). The main complication we observed was upper extremity deep vein thrombosis, 10 (2.4%); all patients were rescued by anticoagulant treatment without peripherally inserted central catheter-PORT removal. The main reason for removal was reservoir pocket infection: 4 (0.9%) with an infection rate of 0.012 per 1000 catheter days. Cumulative 1-year risk of failure was 3.6% (95% confidence interval, 1.3%–7.1%). With regard to the patients’ characteristics, body mass index <22.5 was the only significant risk for failure ( p = 0.027). Conclusion: The peripherally inserted central catheter-PORT is a safe vascular device for chemotherapy delivery that achieves similar clinical results as traditional long-term vascular access devices (peripherally inserted central catheter and arm totally implantable vascular access device, in particular) in breast cancer patients.

Download Full-text

Abstract P2-16-09: Wound Healing and Catheter Thrombosis after Implantable Venous Access Device Placement in 266 Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients Treated with Bevacizumab

10.1158/0008-5472.sabcs10-p2-16-09 ◽

2010 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

I Kriegel ◽

V Fourchotte ◽

PH Cottu ◽

I Fromantin ◽

RJ Salmon ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Breast Cancer ◽

Wound Healing ◽

Metastatic Breast Cancer ◽

Cancer Patients ◽

Metastatic Breast ◽

Venous Access ◽

Breast Cancer Patients ◽

Access Device ◽

Device Placement ◽

Venous Access Device

Download Full-text

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in oncological patients – Long term comparative analysis of the treatment of subcutaneous venous access device scars in 89 breast cancer patients

10.1055/s-0039-1687959 ◽

2019 ◽

Author(s):

C Eichler ◽

J Üner ◽

W Malter ◽

F Thangarajah ◽

J Holtschmidt ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Breast Cancer ◽

Comparative Analysis ◽

Cancer Patients ◽

Platelet Rich Plasma ◽

Venous Access ◽

Breast Cancer Patients ◽

Access Device ◽

Oncological Patients ◽

Venous Access Device

Download Full-text

Tailored approach to the choice of long-term vascular access in breast cancer patients

PLoS ONE ◽

10.1371/journal.pone.0255004 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 16 (7) ◽

pp. e0255004

Author(s):

Hyangkyoung Kim ◽

Sukyung Kwon ◽

Soo Mi Son ◽

Eunseon Jeong ◽

Jang-Yong Kim

Keyword(s):

Breast Cancer ◽

Cancer Patients ◽

Vascular Access ◽

Blood Stream Infection ◽

Clinical Situation ◽

Blood Stream ◽

Breast Cancer Patients ◽

Vein Thrombosis ◽

Chest Port ◽

Deep Vein

This study compared the possible options for vascular access in breast cancer patients by analyzing the complications of each method. We retrospectively evaluated the vascular access procedures for intravenous chemotherapy in breast cancer patients from 2016 to 2018. A total of 300 consecutive patients were included, 100 each who received peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs), arm ports, and chest ports. When selecting a catheter, a PICC was considered when four cycles of chemotherapy were expected. Otherwise, patient preference was considered. All but one patient with an arm port were women, with mean age of 51.7 ± 9.1 years. The total mean complication-free catheter indwelling time was 1357.6 days for chest ports, 997.8 days for arm ports, and 366.8 days for PICCs (p = 0.004). There were 11 catheter-related complications (3.7%), one in a chest port patient, five in arm port patients, and eight in PICC patients. There was no patient with catheter related blood stream infection or deep vein thrombosis. All three types of catheters could be used in breast cancer patients without causing serious complications. The selection of catheter considering the clinical situation was effective for providing a safe and secure chemotherapy delivery route.

Download Full-text