Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Jan 10;28(1):367-377.
doi: 10.3390/curroncol28010039.

Utilization and Complications of Central Venous Access Devices in Oncology Patients

Narmeen Akhtar  1   2 , Linda Lee  2   3
Affiliations

Utilization and Complications of Central Venous Access Devices in Oncology Patients

Narmeen Akhtar et al. Curr Oncol. .

Abstract

Purpose: To describe how central venous access devices (CVADs) are utilized for ambulatory oncology patients and to evaluate the rate of complications.

Method: Single institution retrospective study of oncology patients with CVADs who received systemic treatment at the Walker Family Cancer Centre (WFCC) between 1 January and 31 December 2018.

Results: A total of 480 CVADS were placed in 305 patients, of which 408 (85%) were peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and 72 (15%) were implanted vascular access devices (PORTs). The incidence of early and late complications was 9% and 24%, respectively. For the entire cohort, the rate of venous thromboembolism (VTE) was 16%, of which 9% were CVAD-related thrombosis (CRTs) and 7% were distant VTE. The CRT rates were similar for PICCs and PORTs (9% vs. 7%). A total of 6% of CVADs were complicated by infection (i.e., localized infections and bacteremia), with a total infection rate of 0.43 and 0.26 per 1000 indwelling days for PICCs and PORTs, respectively. The incidence of central line associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI) was greater for PICCs than PORTs, at a rate of 0.22 compared with 0.08 per 1000 indwelling days, respectively. The premature catheter removal rate was 26% for PICCs and 18% for PORTs. PORTs required more additional hospital visits.

Conclusions: PICCs were utilized more frequently than PORTs and had a higher rate of premature removal. The rates of VTE and CRT were similar for both CVAD types. PORTs had a lower rate of infection per 1000 indwelling days. However, the management of PORT related complications required more visits to the hospital and oncology clinic.

Keywords: central venous access devices; complications; implanted vascular access device; infections; peripherally inserted central catheter; venous thromboembolism.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

    1. LeVasseur N., Stober C., Daigle K. View of Optimizing vascular access for patients receiving intravenous systemic therapy for early-stage breast cancer—A survey of oncology nurses and physicians. [(accessed on 26 September 2020)];Curr. Oncol. 2018 25:298–304. Available online: https://www.current-oncology.com/index.php/oncology/article/view/3903/2847. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ho C., Spry C. Central Venous Access Devices (CVADs) and Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters (PICCs) for Adult and Pediatric Patients: A Review of Clinical Effectiveness and Safety. Ottawa (ON): Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. [(accessed on 26 September 2020)]; Available online: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK470804/ - PubMed
    1. Gallieni M., Pittiruti M., Biffi R. Vascular access in oncology patients. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2008;58:323–346. doi: 10.3322/CA.2008.0015. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Assessment and Device Selection for Vascular Access Registered Nursing Association of Ontario. [(accessed on 4 October 2020)];2004 Available online: https://rnao.ca/bpg/guidelines/assessment-and-device-selection-vascular-....
    1. Schiffer C.A., Mangu P.B., Wade J.C., Camp-Sorrell D., Cope D.G., El-Rayes B.F., Gorman M., Ligibel J., Mansfield P., Levine M. Central venous catheter care for the patient with cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline. J. Clin. Oncol. 2013;31:1357–1370. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2012.45.5733. - DOI - PubMed

MeSH terms