Best choice of central venous insertion site for the prevention of catheter-related complications in adult patients who need cancer therapy: A randomized trial

Annals of Oncology

Volumn 20, Issue 5, 2009, Pages 935-940

  Biffi, Roberto ^a   Orsi, F ^a   Pozzi, S ^a   Pace, U ^a   Bonomo, G ^a   Monfardini, L ^a   Della Vigna, P ^a   Rotmensz, N ^a   Radice, D ^a   Zampino, M G ^a   Fazio, N ^a   De Braud, F ^a   Andreoni, B ^a   Goldhirsch, A ^a  

^a EUROPEAN INSTITUTE OF ONCOLOGY   (Italy)

Author keywords

Central venous ports; Cephalic vein; Chemotherapy; Jugular vein; Randomized trial; Subclavian vein; Surgical venous cut down

Indexed keywords

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; CISPLATIN; EPIRUBICIN; FLUOROURACIL; FOLINATE CALCIUM; FOLINIC ACID; IFOSFAMIDE; IRINOTECAN; NAVELBINE; OXALIPLATIN;

ADULT; ARTICLE; CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY; CANCER COMBINATION CHEMOTHERAPY; CATHETER COMPLICATION; CATHETER INFECTION; CATHETER REMOVAL; CATHETER THROMBOSIS; CENTRAL VENOUS CATHETERIZATION; CEPHALIC VEIN; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTINUOUS INFUSION; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEATH; ECHOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERNAL JUGULAR VEIN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SOLID TUMOR; SUBCLAVIAN VEIN; VASCULAR ACCESS;

EID: 65549123721     PISSN: 09237534     EISSN: 15698041     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdn701     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Biffi R, Corrado F, De Braud F et al. Long term, totally implantable central venous access ports connected to Groshong catheter for chemotherapy of solid tumours: Experience on 178 cases using a single type of device. Eur J Cancer 1997; 33: 1190-1194.
2. Biffi R, De Braud F, Orsi F et al. A randomized, prospective trial of central venous ports connected to standard open-ended or Groshong catheters in adult oncology patients. Cancer 2001; 92: 1204-1212.
3. Biffi R, De Braud F, Orsi F et al. Totally implantable central venous access ports for long-term chemotherapy. A prospective study analysing complications and costs in 333 devices with a minimum 180 days of follow-up. Ann Oncol 1998; 9: 767-773.
4. Merrer J, De Jonghe B, Golliot F et al. Complications of femoral and subclavian venous catheterization in critically ill patients: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2001; 286: 700-707.
5. Sznajder JL, Zveibil FR, Bitterman H et al. Central vein catheterization: Failure and complication rates by three percutaneous approaches. Arch Intern Med 1986; 146: 259-261.
6. Mansfield PF, Hohn DC, Fornage BD et al. Complications and failures of subclavian-vein catheterization. N Engl J Med 1994; 331: 1735-1738.
7. Pittiruti M, Malerba M, Carriero C et al. Which is the easiest and safest technique for central venous access? A retrospective survey of more than 5,400 cases. J Vasc Access 2000; 1: 100-107.
8. Schuman E, Brady A, Gross G, Hayes J. Vascular access options for outpatient cancer therapy. Am J Surg 1987; 153: 487-489.
9. Randolph AG, Cook DJ, Gonzales CA, Pribble CG. Ultrasound guidance for placement of central venous catheters: A meta-analysis of the literature. Crit Care Med 1996; 24: 2053-2058.
10. Raad I, Darouiche R, Dupuis J et al. Central venous catheters coated with minocycline and rifampin for the prevention of catheter-related colonization and bloodstream infections: A randomized, double-blind trial. Ann Intern Med 1997; 127: 267-274.
11. Heard SO, Wagle M, Vijayakumar E et al. Influence of triple-lumen central venous catheters coated with chlorhexidine and silver sulfadiazine on the incidence of catheter-related bacteremia. Arch Intern Med 1998; 158: 81-87.
12. McKinley S, Mackenzie A, Finfer S et al. Incidence and predictors of central venous catheter related infection in intensive care patients. Anaesth Intensive Care 1999; 27: 164-169.
13. Povoski SP. A prospective analysis of the cephalic vein cutdown approach for chronic indwelling central venous access in 100 consecutive cancer patients. Ann Surg Oncol 2000; 7: 496-502.
14. Di Carlo I, Cordio S, La Greca G et al. Totally implantable venous access devices implanted surgically: A retrospective study on early and late complications. Arch Surg 2001; 136: 1050-1053.
15. Liu GF, Wang J, Liu K, Snavely DB. Confidence intervals for an exposure adjusted incidence rate difference with applications to clinical trials. Stat Med 2006; 25: 1275-1286.
16. O'Brien PC, Fleming TR. A multiple testing procedure for clinical trials. Biometrics 1979; 35: 549-556.
17. Reusch S, Walder B, Tramer MR. Complications of central venous catheters: Internal jugular versus subclavian access - a systematic review. Crit Care Med 2002; 30: 454-460.
18. Parienti JJ, Thirion M, Mégarbane B et al. Femoral vs jugular venous catheterization and risk of nosocomial events in adults requiring acute renal replacement therapy: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2008; 299: 2413-2422.
19. Hamilton HC, Foxcroft DR. Central venous access sites for the prevention of venous thrombosis, stenosis and infection in patients requiring long-term intravenous therapy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007; (3): CD004084.
20. Araújo C, Silva JP, Antunes P et al. A comparative study between two central veins for the introduction of totally implantable venous access devices in 1201 cancer patients. Eur J Surg Oncol 2008; 34: 222-226.
21. Biffi R, Martinelli G, Pozzi S et al. Totally implantable central venous access ports for high-dose chemotherapy administration and autologous stem cell transplantation: Analysis of overall and septic complications in 68 cases using a single type of device. Bone Marrow Transplant 1999; 24: 89-93.
22. Di Carlo I, Barbagallo F, Toro A et al. External jugular vein cutdown approach, as a useful alternative, supports the choice of the cephalic vein for totally implantable access device placement. Ann Surg Oncol 2005; 12: 570-573.
23. Hind D, Caivert N, McWilliams R et al. Ultrasonic locating devices for central venous cannulation: Meta-analysis. BMJ 2003; 327: 361-367.
24. Gualtieri E, Deppe SA, Sipperly ME, Thompson DR. Subclavian venous catheterization: Greater success rate for less experienced operators using ultrasound guidance. Crit Care Med 1995; 23: 692-697.
25. Slama M, Novara A, Savafian A et al. Improvement of internal jugular vein cannulation using an ultrasound-guided technique. Intensive Care Med 1997; 23: 916-919.
26. Pratt RJ, Pellowe CM, Wilson JA et al. EPIC2: National evidence-based guidelines for preventing healthcare-associated infections in NHS hospitals in England. J Hosp Infect 2007; 65 (Suppl 1): S1-S64.
27. Maki DG, Kluger DM, Crnich CJ. The risk of bloodstream infection in adults with different intravascular devices: A systematic review of 200 published prospective studies. Mayo Clinic Proc 2006; 81: 1159-1171.
28. Vescia S, Baumgärtner AK, Jacobs VR et al. Management of venous port systems in oncology: A review of current evidence. Ann Oncol 2008; 19: 9-15.
29. Lee AY. Cancer and thromboembolic disease: Pathogenic mechanisms. Cancer Treat Rev 2002; 28: 137-140.
30. Verso M, Agnelli G. Venous thromboembolism associated with long-term use of central venous catheters in cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21: 3665-3675.
31. Frank DA, Meuse J, Hirsch D et al. The treatment and outcome of cancer patients with thromboses on central venous catheters. J Thromb Thrombolysis 2000; 10: 271-275.
32. Akl EA, Kamath G, Yosuico V et al. Thromboprophylaxis for patients with cancer and central venous catheters: A systematic review and a meta-analysis. Cancer 2008; 112: 2483-2492.
33. Chaukiyal P, Nautiyal A, Radhakrishnan S et al. Thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients with central venous catheters. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Thromb Haemost 2008; 99: 38-43.
34. Calvert N, Hind D, McWilliams R et al. Ultrasound for central venous cannulation: Economic evaluation of cost-effectiveness. Anaesthesia 2004; 59: 1116-1120.