Virtual Journal Club

Please note: This website is for discussion purposes only. The information provided at this website is not intended to provide treatment advice, or to diagnose or treat any medical disorder. The creator of this website is not responsible for events that occur as a result of decisions made based on the information presented here.

Citations powered by PubMed

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

June 5th, 2009 · Start a Discussion

Related Articles

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

Ann Oncol. 2009 May;20(5):935-40

Authors: Biffi R, Orsi F, Pozzi S, Pace U, Bonomo G, Monfardini L, Della Vigna P, Rotmensz N, Radice D, Zampino MG, Fazio N, de Braud F, Andreoni B, Goldhirsch A

BACKGROUND: Central venous access is extensively used in oncology, though practical information from randomized trials on the most convenient insertion modality and site is unavailable. METHODS: Four hundred and three patients eligible for receiving i.v. chemotherapy for solid tumors were randomly assigned to implantation of a single type of port (Bard Port, Bard Inc., Salt Lake City, UT), through a percutaneous landmark access to the internal jugular, a ultrasound (US)-guided access to the subclavian or a surgical cut-down access through the cephalic vein at the deltoid-pectoralis groove. Early and late complications were prospectively recorded until removal of the device, patient's death or ending of the study. RESULTS: Four hundred and one patients (99.9%) were assessable: 132 with the internal jugular, 136 with the subclavian and 133 with the cephalic vein access. The median follow-up was 356.5 days (range 0-1087). No differences were found for early complication rate in the three groups {internal jugular: 0% [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.0% to 2.7%], subclavian: 0% (95% CI 0.0% to 2.7%), cephalic: 1.5% (95% CI 0.1% to 5.3%)}. US-guided subclavian insertion site had significantly lower failures (e.g. failed attempts to place the catheter in agreement with the original arm of randomization, P = 0.001). Infections occurred in one, three and one patients (internal jugular, subclavian and cephalic access, respectively, P = 0.464), whereas venous thrombosis was observed in 15, 8 and 11 patients (P = 0.272). CONCLUSIONS: Central venous insertion modality and sites had no impact on either early or late complication rates, but US-guided subclavian insertion showed the lowest proportion of failures.

PMID: 19179550 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Link to Abstract at PubMed

Share


Tags: Ann Oncol

0 responses so far ↓

  • There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.

Discuss this article