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.

In the last decade, a new type of brachial port has been introduced in clinical practice, the so-called “PICC-port.” This is a brachial port, but inserted according to the methodologies and technologies currently adopted for the insertion of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs). Several studies have shown that PICC-port insertion is safe, not associated with any relevant immediate or early complication, and that the expected incidence of late complications is significantly lower if compared to “traditional” brachial ports (i.e. inserted without ultrasound guidance). Furthermore, PICC-ports yield excellent esthetic results and are associated with optimal patient compliance. This paper describes an insertion bundle—developed by GAVeCeLT, the Italian Group of Long Term Venous Access Devices, and nicknamed “SIP-Port” (Safe Insertion of PICC-Ports)—which consists of few evidence-based strategies aiming to further minimize all immediate, early, or late complications potentially associated with PICC-port insertion. Also, this insertion bundle has been developed for the purpose of defining more closely the differences between a traditional brachial port and a PICC-port. The SIP-Port bundle is currently adopted by all training courses on PICC-port insertion held by GAVeCeLT. It includes eight steps: (1) preprocedural ultrasound assessment utilizing the RaPeVA (Rapid Peripheral Venous Assessment) protocol; (2) appropriate skin antiseptic technique and maximal barrier precautions; (3) choice of appropriate vein, in terms of caliber and site; (4) clear identification of the median nerve and of the brachial artery during the venipuncture; (5) ultrasound-guided puncture and cannulation of the vein; (6) ultrasound-guided tip navigation; (7) intra-procedural assessment of tip location by intracavitary ECG or by trans-thoracic echocardiography; (8) appropriate creation and closure of the subcutaneous pocket.

In the past 5 years, non-dialysis femoral venous access has changed in terms of indications, techniques of insertion, and expected incidence of complications. To the traditional non-emergency indication for femoral catheters—obstruction of the superior vena cava—many other indications have been added, both in intensive and non-intensive care. The insertion technique has evolved, thanks to ultrasound guided venipuncture, tunneling, and ultrasound based intraprocedural tip location. Insertion of femorally inserted central catheters may be today regarded as a procedure with an extremely low intraprocedural and post-procedural risk. The risk of infection is reduced by the possibility of the exit site at mid-thigh, by the use of cyanoacrylate glue for sealing the exit site, and by appropriate intraprocedural strategies of infection prevention. The risk of catheter-related thrombosis is low, due to several concomitant strategies: a proper match between vein diameter and catheter caliber; an accurate intraprocedural assessment of tip location by ultrasound and/or intracavitary ECG; the consistent use of ultrasound guided venipuncture and micro-introducer kits; an adequate stabilization of the catheter at the exit site. The risk of mechanical complications and the risk of lumen occlusion are minimized when using polyurethane, power injectable catheters. All these novelties have brought a revolution in the field of femoral venous access, so that this route may be considered as safe and effective as other approaches to central venous catheterization.

Purpose: Ultrasound-guided peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are increasingly used in children, though their insertion may be limited by the small caliber of the deep veins of the arm. Previous studies have suggested to use age or weight as a guide to the feasibility of PICC insertion. We have planned an observational study with the purpose of identifying the actual feasibility of PICC insertion based on the ultrasound evaluation of the deep veins of the arm in groups of children of different weight range. Methods: We have studied 252 children weighing between 2.5 and 20 kg, divided in five different groups (group 1: 2.5-4 kg; group 2: 4.1-7 kg; group 3: 7.1-10 kg; group 4: 10.1-15 kg; group 5: 15.1-20 kg): the caliber of brachial vein, basilic vein, and cephalic vein at mid-upper arm + the caliber of the axillary vein at the axilla were measured by ultrasound scan. Results: Veins of caliber >3 mm (appropriate for insertion of a 3 Fr non-tunneled PICC) were found at mid-upper arm in no child of group 1 or 2, in 13% of group 3, in 28% of group 4, and in 54% of group 5. An axillary vein >3 mm (appropriate for insertion of a 3 Fr tunneled PICC) were found in 5.8% of group 1, 30.6% of group 2, 67% of group 3, 82% of group 4, and 94% of group 5. Conclusions: The age and the weight of the child have a small role in predicting the caliber of the veins of the arm. Veins should be measured case by case through a proper and systematic ultrasound evaluation; however, the clinician can expect that insertion of a 3 Fr PICC may be feasible in one third of children weighing between 4 and 7 kg, and in most children weighing more than 7 kg, especially if adopting the tunneling technique.

Physical exercise is often encouraged in cancer patients, mainly for the purpose of rehabilitation and for its psychological benefit. Some authors also suggest that exercise—specially in patient with peripherally inserted central venous access devices—may contribute to reduce the risk of catheter-related thrombosis. Still, the impact of physical exercise on the risk of device-related complications is not yet defined. We report a case of secondary migration of the tip of an arm port, caused by high-intensity exercise in a woman undergoing chemotherapy because of ovarian cancer. Tip migration was suspected because of malfunction (persistent withdrawal occlusion) and diagnosis established after ultrasound examination and chest x-ray. Even if exercise may yield benefit in the cancer patient on chemotherapy, the risk of mechanical complication of the venous access device—such as tip migration—should be considered in the case of high-intensity exercise.

n/a

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.

The aims of our systematic review were to quantify the expected rate of procedural success, early and late complications during CIED implantation using US-guided puncture of the axillary vein and to perform a meta-analysis of those studies that compared the US technique (intervention) versus conventional techniques (control) in terms of complication rates. MEDLINE, ISI Web of Science, and EMBASE were searched for eligible studies. Pooled Odds Ratio (OR) and Pooled Mean Difference (PMD) for each predictor were calculated. The quality of evidence (QOE) was evaluated according to the GRADE guidelines. Thirteen studies were included a total of 2073 patients. The overall success of US-guided venipuncture for CIED implantation was 96.8%. As regards early complications, pneumothorax occurred in 0.19%, arterial puncture in 0.63%, and severe hematoma/bleeding requiring intervention in 1.1%. No cases of hemothorax, brachial plexus, or phrenic nerve injury were reported. As regards late complications, the incidence of pocket infection, venous thromboembolism, and leads dislodgement was respectively 0.4%, 0.8%, and 1.2%. In the meta-analysis (five studies), the intervention group (US-guided venipuncture) had a trend versus a lower likelihood of having a pneumothorax (0.19% vs 0.75%, p = 0.21), pocket hematoma (0.8% vs 1.7%, p = 0.32), infection (0.28% vs 1.05%, p = 0.29) than the control group, but this did not reach statistical significance. The overall QOE was low or very low. In conclusions we found that the US-guided axillary venipuncture for CIEDs implantation was associated with a low incidence of early and late complications and a steep learning curve.

Persistent withdrawal occlusion is a specific catheter malfunction characterized by inability to withdraw blood through the device while infusion is maintained. The main causes are fibroblastic sleeve and tip malposition (associated or not to venous thrombosis around the tip). All current guidelines recommend infusing vesicant/antiblastic drugs through a central venous port only after assessment of blood return. In PWO, blood return is impossible. We have recently started to assess the intravascular position of the tip and the delivery of the infusion in the proximity of the cavo-atrial junction utilizing transthoracic/subxiphoid ultrasound with the ‘bubble test’. We found that this is an easy, real-time, accurate and safe method for verifying the possibility of using a port for chemotherapy even in the absence of blood return, as it occurs with persistent withdrawal occlusion.

Background: Intraprocedural catheter tip location is currently recommended. Intracavitary EGC and ultrasound are the preferred methods of tip location for catheters with their tip in the superior vena cava or in the right atrium. Though, the best method of intraprocedural tip location for catheters with their tip in the inferior vena cava is still uncertain. One possibility is to visualize the subdiaphragmatic inferior vena cava by ultrasound, using either the transhepatic or the subxiphoid view. Methods: In this prospective study, we compared two different ultrasound windows for the visualization of the inferior vena cava (transhepatic vs subxiphoid) for the purpose of localizing the catheter tip during the insertion of femorally inserted central catheters. Results: We studied 249 consecutive insertions of central catheters via the superficial femoral vein. Intraprocedural location of the catheter tip was performed by ultrasound, using both transhepatic and subxiphoid view. Visualization of the inferior vena cava was possible only in 81 cases (32.5%) with the subxiphoid view, but it was always possible in all 249 cases with the transhepatic view. The catheter tip was localized in 15 patients out of 81 with the subxiphoid view (18.5%); the transhepatic view allowed the visualization of the tip in all 249 patients. Conclusions: The applicability of the subxiphoid window has several limitations, both in terms of visualization of the inferior vena cava and localization of the catheter tip. The transhepatic view should be the preferred method for intraprocedural ultrasound localization of the catheter tip in the inferior vena cava.

Background: The ideal intraprocedural method for tip location during insertion of femorally inserted central catheters (FICCs) is still a matter of debate. When the catheter tip is meant to be in the right atrium or in the supradiaphragmatic inferior vena cava (IVC), tip location by either intracavitary electrocardiography or transthoracic echocardiography may be accurate and easy to perform. When the catheter tip is planned to be placed in the subdiaphragmatic IVC, fluoroscopy—though inaccurate and unsafe—has been regarded as the only option for intraprocedural tip location. Methods: We have investigated prospectively the applicability and feasibility of transhepatic ultrasound as intraprocedural method for assessing the location of the catheter tip in the subdiaphragmatic tract of IVC, during FICC insertion. Results: We enrolled 169 consecutive patients undergoing FICC insertion by ultrasound guided puncture of the superficial femoral vein. In 165 out of 169 patients, the subdiaphragmatic IVC was visualized by the transhepatic ultrasound view. In all cases of IVC visualization, the catheter tip could be identified by ultrasound, either directly (direct evidence of the tip inside the vein) or indirectly (enhanced visualization of the tip after “bubble test”). There was no immediate or early complication, and very few late complications. Conclusion: The intraprocedural method of tip location of FICCs by transhepatic ultrasound was applicable in 97.6% of cases and feasible in 100%. When the position of the catheter tip is planned to be in the subdiaphragmatic IVC, this method of tip location is accurate, safe, and inexpensive, and should be considered as an alternative to fluoroscopy.

Background: The use of central venous access devices (CVADs) is of paramount importance to safely deliver antiblastic and support therapies in children with cancer. Though, in pediatric patients, as much as in adults, CVADs are potentially associated with severe complications which may result in unscheduled interruption of therapy, hospitalization, increased morbidity/mortality, and increased cost of care. Methods: We have reviewed retrospectively our experience with CVADs in children with solid tumors and hematologic diseases, with the purpose of verifying if the adoption of well-defined insertion and maintenance bundles might be effective in reducing catheter-related complications, and in particular catheter-related thrombosis. Results: A total of 227 CVADs were analyzed: 175 peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs), 50 centrally inserted central catheters (CICCs), and 2 femorally inserted central catheters. All CVADs were non-valved, non-cuffed power injectable polyurethane catheters; 81% were tunneled. Median dwelling time of CVADs was 172 days, for a total number of 39,044 catheter days. A very low incidence of both symptomatic catheter-related thrombosis (0.9%) and catheter-related blood stream infection (0.56 episodes per 1000 catheter days) was found. Unscheduled removal or guidewire replacement because of mechanic complications occurred in 15.7% of CVADs. There was no difference in terms of complications between PICCs and CICCs or between tunneled and non-tunneled catheters. Conclusions: Our experience with CVADs in oncologic and hematologic children suggests that catheter-related complications may be minimized by the adoption of appropriate insertion and maintenance bundles.

Background: Both intracavitary electrocardiography (IC-ECG) and ultrasound (US) have been proven to be safe and accurate for intraprocedural tip location during central venous catheterization, and both are known to be easily applicable and feasible in pediatric patients. Though, no prospective clinical study has directly compared the two methods as regards their applicability, feasibility, and procedural time. Methods: This study prospectively enrolled all children requiring a central venous access device in non-emergency situations, during a period of 1 year. All devices were inserted according to a well-defined insertion bundle including both IC-ECG and US-based tip location. The primary endpoint of the study was to compare the two methods in terms of applicability, feasibility and time required. Results: This study included 100 consecutive central venous catheterizations in children of age ranging from 1 month to 18 years. The applicability of IC-ECG based tip location was 98% and its feasibility 100%; the time required for IC-ECG was 1.9 ± 2 min. The applicability of US-based tip location was 96% and its feasibility was 100%; the maneuver required 2.2 ± 3 min. Conclusions: US is an appropriate alternative method for intraprocedural tip location in children. The combined use of US and IC-ECG (both maneuvers being accurate, inexpensive, cost-effective, non-invasive, and equally fast to perform) should be recommended for tip location in pediatric patients, and it will avoid completely the use of fluoroscopy or of post-procedural x-ray.

Insertion of venous access devices (VAD) is usually considered a procedure with low risk of bleeding. Nonetheless, insertion of some devices is invasive enough to be associated with bleeding, especially in patients with previous coagulopathy or in treatment with antithrombotic drugs for cardiovascular disease. The current practices of platelet/plasma transfusion in coagulopathic patients and of temporary suspension of the antithrombotic treatment before VAD insertion are based on local policies and are often inadequately supported by evidence, since many of the clinical studies on this topic are not recent and are not of high quality. Furthermore, the protocols of antithrombotic treatment have changed during the last decade, after the introduction of new oral anticoagulant drugs. Though some guidelines address some of these issues in relation with specific procedures (port insertion, etc.), no evidence-based document covering all the aspects of this clinical problem is currently available. Thus, the Italian Group of Venous Access Devices (GAVeCeLT) has decided to develop a consensus on the management of antithrombotic treatment and bleeding disorders in patients requiring VADs. After a systematic review of the available evidence, the panel of the consensus (which included vascular access specialists, surgeons, intensivists, anesthetists, cardiologists, vascular medicine experts, nephrologists, infective disease specialists, and thrombotic disease specialists) has structured the final recommendations as detailed answers to three sets of questions: (1) which is an appropriate classification of VAD-related procedures based on the specific bleeding risk? (2) Which is the appropriate management of the patient with bleeding disorders candidate to VAD insertion/removal? (3) Which is the appropriate management of the patient on antithrombotic treatment candidate to VAD insertion/removal? Only statements reaching a complete agreement were included in the final recommendation

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.