Kanser Hastalarında İki Yıllık Subkutan Venöz Port Kateter Deneyimimiz

Year 2022, , 122 - 128, 28.02.2022

Ali Duran , Engin Küçükdiler

https://doi.org/10.53424/balikesirsbd.972013

Abstract

ÖZET:
Amaç: Bu çalışmada malignite tanısı ile port kateter implante edilen hastaların retrospektif olarak incelenmesi ve takipleri sırasında meydana gelmiş olan komplikasyonların ortaya konulması amaçlanmıştır.
Gereç-Yöntem: 2017 Eylül-2019 Eylül tarihleri arasında XXX Hastanesi Cerrahi Onkoloji Kliniğinde Subkutan Venöz Port Kateter (SVPK) takılan toplam 109 hasta (67 erkek, 42 kadın) (yaş ortalaması±standart sapma=59.68 ±11.84) retrospektif olarak incelenmiş demografik veri, venöz erişim yolu, teknik ve komplikasyonlar ortaya konulmuştur.
Bulgular: En sık SVPK takılan malignitenin kolon kanseri olduğu görülmüştür. Erken dönem komplikasyonlardan Sağ İnternal Jugüler Ven (İJV)’den yapılan girişimlerde sekiz (%8.42) hastada giriş yerinde hematom, dört (%4.21) hastada tünel bölgesi hematomu, altı (%6.31) hastada tünel bölgesi ekimozu görülürken, Sağ Subklavien Ven (SCV)’den yapılan girişimlerde bir (%7.14) hastada giriş yerinde hematom ve bir (%7.14) hastada kateter malpozisyonu görülmüştür. Hastalarda pnömotorak/hemotoraks gelişmemiştir.
Geç dönem komplikasyonlarında da İJV’den girişimlerinde altı (%6.31) hastada cilt enfeksiyonu, iki (%2.10) hastada rezervuar malrotasyonu, iki (%2.10) hastada fibrin tıkaç, iki (%2.10) hastada da kateter katlanması görülmüştür. SCV’den yapılan girişimlerde ise iki (%14.28) hastada cilt enfeksiyonu, bir (%7.14) hastada fibrin tıkaç görülmüştür. “Pinch off sendromu” ve venöz tromboz görülmemiştir. İki giriş yolunda komplikasyonlar açısından istatistiksel olarak anlamlı fark saptanmamıştır. İJV’den yapılan girişimlerde altı (%6.31), SCV’den girişim yapılan iki (%14.28) hastada çeşitli nedenlerle kateterler çıkarılırken, İJV’den girişim yapılan üç (%3.15) hastada kateter revizyonu yapılmıştır.
Sonuç: Subkutan venöz port kateteri kanser hastalarında etkin ve güvenilir bir venöz erişim yoludur. Uygun teknik ve tecrübeli ellerde yapıldığı taktirde minimal komplikasyon ve uzun süreli bir venöz erişim yolu sağlamaktadır.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Kemoterapi, Venöz port kateterizasyonu, Kanser, Komplikasyon

Keywords

Kemoterapi, Venöz port kateterizasyonu, Kanser, Komplikasyon

Supporting Institution

yok

Project Number

yok

Thanks

yok

Two-Year Subcutaneous Venous Port Catheter Experience in Cancer Patients

Abstract

Abstract
Aim:In this study, we aim to examine the patients who were implanted with a port catheter with malignancy diagnosis retrospectively and to reveal the complications that occurred during follow-ups.
Materials-Methods: 109 patients (67 males, 42 females) (mean age±standard deviation=59.68±11.84) with Subcutaneous Venous Port Catheter (SVPC) in the Surgical Oncology Clinic of XXX Hospital between September 2017 and September 2019, were retrospectively analyzed demographically, venous access route, technique and complications.
Results:The most common malignancy with CVPK was colon cancer. In interventions made from the Right Internal Jugular Vein (IJV) hematoma at the access site (8.42%), tunnel site hematoma (4.21%), and tunnel zone ecchymosis(6.31%) were observed as early complication and Right Subclavian Vein (SCV) hematoma at the access site(7.14%) and catheter malposition (7.14%) were observed. No pneumothorax or hemothorax occured in the patients.As late complications, skin infection (6.31%), reservoir malrotation (2.10%), fibrin plug (2.10%), and catheter folding (2.10%) were observed in IJV interventions. In SCV interventions, skin infection (14.28%) and fibrin plug (7.14)% were observed.“Pinch off syndrome” and venous thrombosis weren’t observed. There was no statistically significant difference in terms of complications in the two access routes. The catheters were removed for various reasons in six (6.31%) patients who had IJV interventions and in two (14.28%) patients who had SCV intervention, catheter revision was performed in three (3.15%) patients who had IJV intervention.
Conclusion: Subcutaneous venous port catheter is an effective and safe venous access route in cancer patients.Provides minimal complications and a long-term venous access route if performed with appropriate technique and experienced hands.
Keywords:Chemotherapy, Venous port catheterization, Cancer, Complication

Keywords

Chemotherapy, Venous port catheterization, Cancer, Complication

Project Number

yok

References

• Biffi, R., De Braud, F., Orsi, F., Pozzi, S., Arnaldi, P., Goldhirsch, A., ... & Andreoni, B. (2001). A randomized, prospective trial of central venous ports connected to standard open‐ended or Groshong catheters in adult oncology patients. Cancer: Interdisciplinary International Journal of the American Cancer Society, 92(5), 1204-1212.
• Burns, K. E., & McLaren, A. (2009). Catheter-related right atrial thrombus and pulmonary embolism: a case report and systematic review of the literature. Canadian respiratory journal, 16(5), 163-165.
• Cowl, C., Weinstock, J. V., Al-Jurf, A., Ephgrave, K., Murray, J. A., & Dillon, K. (2000). Complications and cost associated with parenteral nutrition delivered to hospitalized patients through either subclavian or peripherally-inserted central catheters. Clinical nutrition, 19(4), 237-243.
• Czepizak, C. A., O’Callaghan, J. M., & Venus, B. (1995). Evaluation of formulas for optimal positioning of central venous catheters. Chest, 107(6), 1662-1664.
• Dede, D., Akmangit, I., Yildirim, Z. N., Sanverdi, E., & Sayin, B. (2008). Ultrasonography and fluoroscopy-guided insertion of chest ports. European Journal of Surgical Oncology (EJSO), 34(12), 1340-1343.
• Di Carlo, I., Cordio, S., La Greca, G., Privitera, G., Russello, D., Puleo, S., & Latteri, F. (2001). Totally implantable venous access devices implanted surgically: a retrospective study on early and late complications. Archives of Surgery, 136(9), 1050-1053.
• Gulec, G., & Buyukkinaci, A. (2011). Cancer and Psychiatric Disorders/Kanser ve Psikiyatrik Bozukluklar. Psikiyatride Guncel Yaklasimlar/Current Approaches to Psychiatry, 3(2), 343-368.
• GÜVEN, C. Subkutan venöz port katater uygulamalarımızın değerlendirilmesi: 6 yıllık klinik tecrübemiz. Adıyaman Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi, 6(1), 29-40.
• Iannacci, L., & Piomelli, S. (1984). Supportive care for children with cancer. Guidelines of the Childrens Cancer Study Group. Use of venous access lines. The American journal of pediatric hematology/oncology, 6(3), 277-281.
• Kaygın, M. A., Dağ, Ö., Güneş, M., Şenocak, M., & Erkut, B. (2012). Malign hastalıklarda intravenöz port kullanımı: 5 yıllık klinik deneyim. Selçuk Tıp Dergisi, 28(1), 17-21.
• Kesici, S., Carus, H., Turgut, N., Ünlü, N., Altan, A., & Kesici, U. (2011). Başarılı Venöz Port Kateterizasyonu Sonrası Kateterin Spontan Yer Değişmesi. Okmeydanı Tıp Dergisi, 27(1), 49-53.
• Lin, C. H., Wu, H. S., Chan, D. C., Hsieh, C. B., Huang, M. H., & Yu, J. C. (2010). The mechanisms of failure of totally implantable central venous access system: analysis of 73 cases with fracture of catheter. European Journal of Surgical Oncology (EJSO), 36(1), 100-103.
• Lorch, H., Zwaan, M., Kagel, C., & Weiss, H. D. (2001). Central venous access ports placed by interventional radiologists: experience with 125 consecutive patients. Cardiovascular and interventional radiology, 24(3), 180-184.
• McGee, D. C., & Gould, M. K. (2003). Preventing complications of central venous catheterization. New England journal of medicine, 348(12), 1123-1133.
• ÖZER, A. B., & BAYAR, M. K. (2011). İmplante edilebilir venöz port kateter uygulamalarımızın incelenmesi. Fırat Tıp Dergisi, 16(1), 6-10. Schwarz, R. E., Groeger, J. S., & Coit, D. G. (1997). Subcutaneously implanted central venous access devices in cancer patients: a prospective analysis. Cancer, 79(8), 1635-1640.
• Shim, J., Seo, T. S., Song, M. G., Cha, I. H., Kim, J. S., Choi, C. W., ... & Oh, S. C. (2014). Incidence and risk factors of infectious complications related to implantable venous-access ports. Korean journal of radiology, 15(4), 494-500.
• Singh, K. R., Agarwal, G., Nanda, G., Chand, G., Mishra, A., Agarwal, A., ... & Goyal, P. (2014). Morbidity of chemotherapy administration and satisfaction in breast cancer patients: a comparative study of totally implantable venous access device (TIVAD) versus peripheral venous access usage. World journal of surgery, 38(5), 1084-1092.
• Stanislav, G. V., Fitzgibbons, R. J., Bailey, R. T., Mailliard, J. A., Johnson, P. S., & Feole, J. B. (1987). Reliability of implantable central venous access devices in patients with cancer. Archives of Surgery, 122(11), 1280-1283.
• Tabatabaie, O., Kasumova, G. G., Kent, T. S., Eskander, M. F., Fadayomi, A. B., Ng, S. C., ... & Tseng, J. F. (2017). Upper extremity deep venous thrombosis after port insertion: what are the risk factors?. Surgery, 162(2), 437-444.
• Tan, P. L., & Gibson, M. (2006). Central venous catheters: the role of radiology. Clinical Radiology, 61(1), 13-22.
• Turcotte, S., Dube, S., & Beauchamp, G. (2006). Peripherally inserted central venous catheters are not superior to central venous catheters in the acute care of surgical patients on the ward. World journal of surgery, 30(8), 1605-1619.
• Yildizeli, B., Lacin, T., Batirel, H. F., & Yüksel, M. (2004). Complications and management of long-term central venous access catheters and ports. The journal of vascular access, 5(4), 174-178.
• Yip, D., & Funaki, B. (2002). Subcutaneous chest ports via the internal jugular vein: a retrospective study of 117 oncology patients. Acta Radiologica, 43(4), 371-375.
• Yousaf, M., & Malak, S. F. (2008). Left atrial drainage of a persistent left superior vena cava. Radiology case reports, 3(4), 225.