Ultrasound IV port placement

0

Intravenous literature: Sakamoto, N., Arai, Y., Takeuchi, Y., Takahashi, M., Tsurusaki, M. and Sugimura, K. (2010) Ultrasound-Guided Radiological Placement of Central Venous Port via the Subclavian Vein: A Retrospective Analysis of 500 Cases at a Single Institute. CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology.

Abstract:

The purpose of this study was to assess the technical success rate and adverse events (AEs) associated with ultrasound (US)-guided radiological placement (RP) of a central venous port (CVP) via the subclavian vein (SCV). Between April 2006 and May 2007, a total of 500 US-guided RPs of a CVP via the SCV were scheduled in 486 cancer patients (mean age ± SD, 54.1 ± 18.1 years) at our institute. Referring to the interventional radiology report database and patients’ records, technical success rate and AEs relevant to CVP placement were evaluated retrospectively. The technical success rate was 98.6% (493/500). AEs occurred in 26 cases (5.2%) during follow-up (range, 1–1080 days; mean ± SD, 304.0 ± 292.1 days). AEs within 24 h postprocedure occurred in five patients: pneumothorax (n = 2), arterial puncture (n = 1), hematoma formation at the pocket site (n = 2), and catheter tip migration into the internal mammary vein (n = 1). There were seven early AEs: hematoma formation at the pocket site (n = 2), fibrin sheath formation around the indwelling catheter (n = 2), and catheter-related infections (n = 3). There were 13 delayed AEs: catheter-related infections (n = 7), catheter detachments (n = 3), catheter occlusion (n = 1), symptomatic thrombus in the SCV (n = 1), and catheter migration (n = 1). No major AEs, such as procedure-related death, air embolism, or events requiring surgical intervention, were observed. In conclusion, US-guided RP of a CVP via the SCV is highly appropriate, based on its high technical success rate and the limited number of AEs.


Share.

Comments are closed.