Search

Background: PICC-ports may be defined as totally implantable central venous devices inserted in the upper limb using the current state-of-the-art techniques of PICC insertion (ultrasound-guided venipuncture of deep veins of the arm, micro-puncture kits, proper location of the tip preferably by intracavitary ECG), with placement of the reservoir at the middle third of the arm. A previous report on breast cancer patients demonstrated the safety and efficacy of these devices, with a very low failure rate. Methods: This retrospective multicenter cohort study—developed by GAVeCeLT (the Italian Group of Long-Term Venous Access Devices)—investigated the outcomes of PICC-ports in a large cohort of unselected patients. The study included 4480 adult patients who underwent PICC-port insertion in five Italian centers, during a period of 60 months. The primary outcome was device failure, defined as any serious adverse event (SAE) requiring removal. The secondary outcome was the incidence of temporary adverse events (TAE) not requiring removal. Results: The median follow-up was 15.5 months. Device failure occurred in 52 cases (1.2%), the main causes being local infection (n = 7; 0.16%) and CRBSI (n = 19; 0.42%). Symptomatic catheter-related thrombosis occurred in 93 cases (2.1%), but removal was required only in one case (0.02%). Early/immediate and late TAE occurred in 904 cases (20.2%) and in 176 cases (3.9%), respectively. Conclusions: PICC-ports are safe venous access devices that should be considered as an alternative option to traditional arm-ports and chest-ports when planning chemotherapy or other long-term intermittent intravenous treatments.

Background: Chest-to-arm (CTA) tunneling has been described recently as a technique that allows an optimal exit site at mid-arm even in chronically ill patients with complex clinical issues and challenging problems of vascular access. Method: We adopted CTA tunneling in oncologic and in non-oncologic patients, in totally implanted and in external devices, for both medium and long-term intravenous treatments. We report our experience with 60 cases of CTA tunneling: 19 patients requiring a totally implantable device, who had bilateral contraindication to venous access at the arm and bilateral contraindication to placement of the pocket in the infra-clavicular area; 41 patients requiring an external central venous catheter, who had bilateral contraindication to insertion of peripherally inserted central catheters or femoral catheters, as well as contraindication to an exit site in the infraclavicular area. All venous access devices were inserted with ultrasound guidance and tip location by intracavitary electrocardiography, under local anesthesia. Results: There were no immediate or early complications. Patients with CTA-ports had no late complications. In patients with CTA-tunneled external catheters, there were two dislodgments, four episodes of central line associated blood stream infections, and one local infection. There were no episodes of venous thrombosis or catheter malfunction. Conclusion: Our experience suggests that CTA tunneling is a safe maneuver, with very low risk of complications, and should be considered as an option in patients with complex venous access.

Introduction: Peripheral venous access for extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP) may be difficult in graft versus host disease (GVHD) patients, because of previous intravenous therapies and multiple peripheral cannulations; in this population of patients, ultrasound guided midline catheters may be an alternative option to central venous access. Methods: In this single-center, prospective preliminary study, we enrolled all consecutive patients with a diagnosis of GVHD and candidate to ECP, over a period of 10 months. We used inserted power injectable, non-valved, polyurethane, 20–25 cm single lumen midline catheters (MC). Results: Sixty-nine ECP procedures were carried out in six patients, using single-lumen MCs for outflow (5Fr in 74% and 4Fr in 26% of cases). For inflow, we used 5Fr or 4Fr MCs, or central venous access devices previously placed for other clinical reasons. There were no catheter-related complications during the entire period of ECP treatment. Mean outflow was significantly higher for 5Fr than for 4Fr MCs (35.8 ± 7.3 vs 29.2 ± 7.8 ml/min; p = 0.0008) and the procedure time was significantly shorter (92.9 ± 9.2 vs 108 ± 13.2 min; p < 0.0001). Conclusion: In GVHD patients, ECP can be performed efficiently and safely using single lumen polyurethane power injectable MCs. The best results are obtained with 5Fr rather than with 4Fr catheters. This strategy of venous access should be implemented in DIVA patients requiring ECP treatments, and probably also in other types of apheresis.

N/A