Abstract
Purpose
Subcutaneous central venous port catheters (SCVPC) are of great importance in the treatment of patients with malignancies since they provide secure vascular access. Our aim was to assess the impact of long-term catheter care frequency on the frequency of port-related complications.
Patients and methods
Two hundred and seven patients who had not been on active chemotherapy through their SCVPC for at least 3 months were enrolled into the study. Those who received catheter care every 3 months or more frequently were assigned to the frequent care group, and the others to the infrequent care group. The patients were examined for port-related complications and thrombosis including port occlusion. Routinely in our clinic, catheter care was done by using 300 IU of heparin.
Results
According to the frequency of SCVPC care, 49 (23.7 %) patients were in the frequent care group and 158 (76.3 %) were in the infrequent care group. Median follow-up of all patients was 671 days (range 133–1712). Median frequency of port care in the frequent care group was 90 days (range 30–90), but 441.5 days in the infrequent care group (range 91–1630). None of the patients experienced port-related severe complications during the follow-up time. None of them presented with port occlusion. When the groups were analysed for thrombus (symptomatic and asymptomatic), there was no statistically significant difference (6.4 vs 13.8 %, p = 0.17). Those patients who had received more than first-line chemotherapy were found to have more thrombi than the patients who were treated with only one type of chemotherapy protocol (28.6 vs 10.2 %, p = 0.01), and the patients who had metastatic disease at the last control were found out to have thrombi more frequently than the non-metastatic patients (24.3 vs 9.3 %) (p = 0.01).
Conclusions
In the present study, there was no difference in port-related severe complications between frequent and infrequent care groups during follow-up. However, the rate of thrombosis was slightly higher in the infrequent port care group.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ballarini C, Intra M, Pisanni Ceretti AP et al (1999) Complications of subcutaneous infusion port in the general oncology population. Oncology 56:97–102
Vardy J, Engelhardt K, Cox K et al (2004) Long-term outcome of radiological-guided insertion of implanted central venous access port devices (CVAPD) for the delivery of chemotherapy in cancer patients: institutional experience and review of the literature. Br J Cancer 91:1045–1049
Meta-analysis Group In Cancer. Efficacy of intravenous continuous infusion of fluorouracil compared with bolus administration in advanced colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16:301–308
Biffi R, Corrado F, De Braun F et al (1997) Long term, totally implantable central venous access ports connected to Groshong catheter for chemotherapy of solid tumors: experience on 178 cases using a single type of device. Eur J Cancer 33:1190–1194
Krupski G, Froschle GW, Weh FJ et al (1995) Central venous access devices in treatment of patients with maligmant tumors: venous port, central venous catheter and Hickman catheter. Cost-benefit analysis based on a critical review of the literature, personal experiences with 135 port implantations and patient attitude. Chirurg 66:202–207
Klerk CP, Smorenburg SM, Buller HR (2003) Thrombosis prophylaxis in patient populations with a central venous catheter: a systematic review. Arch Intern Med 163:1913–1921
Verso M, Agnelli G (2003) Venous thromboembolism associated with long-term use of central venous catheters in cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 21:3665–3675
Boersma RS, Jie KS, Verbon A et al (2008) Thrombotic and infectious complications of central venous catheters in patients with hematological malignancies. Ann Oncol 19:433–442
Vescia S, Baumgartner AK, Jacobs VR et al (2008) Management of venous port systems in oncology: a review of current evidence. Ann Oncol 19:9–15
Kuo YS, Schwart B, Santiago J et al (2005) How often should a port-A-cath be flushed? Cancer Invest 23:582–585
Kefeli U, Dane F, Yumuk PF et al (2009) Prolonged interval in prophylactic heparin flushing for maintenance of subcutaneous implanted port care in patients with cancer. Eur J Cancer Care 18:191–194
Bow EJ, Kilpatrick MG, Clinch JJ (1999) Totally implantable venous access ports systems for patients receiving chemotherapy for solid tissue malignancies: a randomized controlled clinical trial examining the safety, efficacy, costs, and impact on quality of life. J Clin Oncol 17:1267–1273
Ozdemir NY, Abali H, Oksüzoglu B et al (2009) It appears to be safe to start chemotherapy on the day of implantation through subcutaneous venous port catheters in inpatient setting. Support Care Cancer 17:399–403
Levine M, Hirsh J, Gent M et al (1994) Double-blind randomised trial of a very-low-dose warfarin for prevention of thromboembolism in stage IV breast cancer. Lancet 343:886–889
Sallah S, Wan JY, Nguyen NP (2002) Venous thrombosis in patients with solid tumors: determination of frequency and characteristics. Thromb Haemost 87:575–579
Heit JA, Silverstein MD, Mohr DN et al (2000) Risk factors for deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism: apopulation-based case-control study. Arch Intern Med 160:809–815
Blom JW, Vanderschoot JP, Oostindier MJ et al (2006) Incidence of venous thrombosis in a large cohort of 66,329 cancer patients: results of a record linkage study. J Thromb Haemost 4:529–535
Heaton DC, Han DY, Inder A (2002) Minidose (1 mg) warfarin as prophylaxis for central vein catheter thrombosis. Intern Med J 32:84–88
Couban S, Goodyear M, Burnell M et al (2005) Randomized placebo-controlled study of low-dose warfarin for the prevention of central venous catheter-associated thrombosis in patients with cancer. J Clin Oncol 23:4063–4069
Ruud E, Holmstrom H, De Lange C et al (2006) Low-dose warfarin for the prevention of central line-associated thromboses in children with malignancies––a randomized, controlled study. Acta Pediatr 95:1053–1059
Debourdeau P, Kassab Chahmi D, Le Gal G et al (2008) SOR guidelines for the prevention and treatment of thrombosis associated with central venous catheters in patients with cancer: report from the working group. Ann Oncol 2009(20):1459–1471
Verso M, Agnelli G, Bertoglio S et al (2005) Enoxaparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism associated with central vein catheter: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized study in cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 23:4057–4062
Kroger K, Weiland D, Ose C et al (2006) Risk factors for venous thromboembolic events in cancer patients. Ann Oncol 17:297–303
Khorana AA, Kuderer NM, Culakova E et al (2008) Development and validation of a predictive model for chemotherapy-associated thrombosis. Blood 111:4902–4907
Sallah S, Husain A, Sigounas V et al (2004) Plasma coagulation markers in patients with solid tumors and venous thromboembolic disease receiving oral anticoagulation therapy. Clin Cancer Res 10:7238–7243
Barrios CH, Zuke JE, Blaes B et al (1992) Evaluation of an implantable venous access system in a general oncology population. Oncology 49:474–478
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
About this article
Cite this article
Odabas, H., Ozdemir, N.Y., Ziraman, I. et al. Effect of port-care frequency on venous port catheter-related complications in cancer patients. Int J Clin Oncol 19, 761–766 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-013-0609-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-013-0609-7