Sonam Tashi, Alfred Bingchao Tan, Jasmine Ming Er Chua, Gek Hsiang Lim, Nanda Venkatanarasimha, Sivanathan Chandramohan
{"title":"Radiologic placement of totally implantable venous access devices: Outcomes and complications from a large oncology cohort.","authors":"Sonam Tashi, Alfred Bingchao Tan, Jasmine Ming Er Chua, Gek Hsiang Lim, Nanda Venkatanarasimha, Sivanathan Chandramohan","doi":"10.47102/annals-acadmedsg.2024166","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Totally implantable venous access devices (TIVADs) or ports are increasingly used in oncology settings to provide long-term, easy venous access. This study reports our experience and results with 1180 cases in Singapore.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Data from January 2019 to January 2022, obtained from a hospital-approved secure database application called the Research Electronic Data Capture registry, were reviewed and analysed retrospectively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 1180 patients underwent TIVAD implantation with a 100% technical success rate. The mean age of the cohort was 61.9 years. The mean dwell duration was 342 days (standard deviation [SD] 223; range 3-1911). By 1 February 2022, 83% of patients were still using the TIVAD, 13.6 % underwent removal after completion of treatment, 2.1% were removed due to infection, 0.6% due to malfunction, 0.6% due to port extrusion and 0.1% at patient's request. The right internal jugular vein (IJV) was the most commonly accessed site (83.6%), followed by the left IJV (15.6%). The early post-procedure complications were pain (24.7%), bruising (9.2%), swelling (3.6%), bleeding (0.5%), fever (0.4%), itchiness (0.2%) and allergic dermatitis (0.1%). The delayed post-procedure complications were TIVAD site cellulitis (3.80%); discharge (1.10%); skin erosion with device extrusion (0.60%); malpositioned catheter (0.33%), which was successfully repositioned, catheter-related bloodstream infections (0.25%); migration of TIVAD leading to catheter dislodgement (0.25%); venous thrombosis (0.25%); fibrin sheath formation requiring stripping (0.10%) and TIVAD chamber inversion (0.10%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>TIVAD implantation via the jugular vein under radiological guidance provides a safe, reliable and convenient means of long-term venous access in oncology patients. By sharing our experience and acceptable outcomes from a large oncology cohort, we aim to increase the awareness and adoption of TIVAD usage in oncology patients, especially in Asia.</p>","PeriodicalId":502093,"journal":{"name":"Annals of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore","volume":"54 1","pages":"27-35"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47102/annals-acadmedsg.2024166","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Totally implantable venous access devices (TIVADs) or ports are increasingly used in oncology settings to provide long-term, easy venous access. This study reports our experience and results with 1180 cases in Singapore.
Method: Data from January 2019 to January 2022, obtained from a hospital-approved secure database application called the Research Electronic Data Capture registry, were reviewed and analysed retrospectively.
Results: A total of 1180 patients underwent TIVAD implantation with a 100% technical success rate. The mean age of the cohort was 61.9 years. The mean dwell duration was 342 days (standard deviation [SD] 223; range 3-1911). By 1 February 2022, 83% of patients were still using the TIVAD, 13.6 % underwent removal after completion of treatment, 2.1% were removed due to infection, 0.6% due to malfunction, 0.6% due to port extrusion and 0.1% at patient's request. The right internal jugular vein (IJV) was the most commonly accessed site (83.6%), followed by the left IJV (15.6%). The early post-procedure complications were pain (24.7%), bruising (9.2%), swelling (3.6%), bleeding (0.5%), fever (0.4%), itchiness (0.2%) and allergic dermatitis (0.1%). The delayed post-procedure complications were TIVAD site cellulitis (3.80%); discharge (1.10%); skin erosion with device extrusion (0.60%); malpositioned catheter (0.33%), which was successfully repositioned, catheter-related bloodstream infections (0.25%); migration of TIVAD leading to catheter dislodgement (0.25%); venous thrombosis (0.25%); fibrin sheath formation requiring stripping (0.10%) and TIVAD chamber inversion (0.10%).
Conclusion: TIVAD implantation via the jugular vein under radiological guidance provides a safe, reliable and convenient means of long-term venous access in oncology patients. By sharing our experience and acceptable outcomes from a large oncology cohort, we aim to increase the awareness and adoption of TIVAD usage in oncology patients, especially in Asia.