Wu Shaoyong, Huang Jingxiu, Jiang Zongming, Huang Zhimei, Ouyang Handong, Deng Li, Lin Wenqian, Guo Jin, Zeng Weian
Department of Anesthesiology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, 651 Dongfeng East Road, Guangzhou, Guangdong, 510060, People's Republic of China.
Department of Anesthesiology, Shaoxing People's Hospital (Shaoxing Hospital of Zhejiang University), Shaoxing, Zhejiang, China.
BMC Cancer. 2016 Sep 22;16(1):747. doi: 10.1186/s12885-016-2791-2.
A totally implantable venous access device (TIVAD) provides reliable, long-term vascular access and improves patients' quality of life. The wide use of TIVADs is associated with important complications. A meta-analysis was undertaken to compare the internal jugular vein (IJV) with the subclavian vein (SCV) as the percutaneous access site for TIVAD to determine whether IJV has any advantages.
All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies assessing the two access sites, IJV and SCV, were retrieved from PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and OVID EMB Reviews from their inception to December 2015. Random-effects models were used in all analyses. The endpoints evaluated included TIVAD-related infections, catheter-related thrombotic complications, and major mechanical complications.
Twelve studies including 3905 patients published between 2008 and 2015, were included. Our meta-analysis showed that incidences of TIVAD-related infections (odds ratio [OR] 0.71, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.48-1.04, P = 0.081) and catheter-related thrombotic complications (OR 0.76, 95 % CI 0.38-1.51, P = 0.433) were not significantly different between the two groups. However, compared with SCV, IJV was associated with reduced risks of total major mechanical complications (OR 0.38, 95 % CI 0.24-0.61, P < 0.001). More specifically, catheter dislocation (OR 0.43, 95 % CI 0.22-0.84, P = 0.013) and malfunction (OR 0.42, 95 % CI 0.28-0.62, P < 0.001) were more prevalent in the SCV than in the IJV group; however, the risk of catheter fracture (OR 0.47, 95 % CI 0.21-1.05, P = 0.065) were not significantly different between the two groups. Sensitivity analyses using fixed-effects models showed a decreased risk of catheter fracture in the IJV group.
The IJV seems to be a safer alternative to the SCV with lower risks of total major mechanical complications, catheter dislocation, and malfunction. However, a large-scale and well-designed RCT comparing the complications of each access site is warranted before the IJV site can be unequivocally recommended as a first choice for percutaneous implantation of a TIVAD.
全植入式静脉通路装置(TIVAD)可提供可靠的长期血管通路并改善患者生活质量。TIVAD的广泛使用与重要并发症相关。进行了一项荟萃分析,比较颈内静脉(IJV)和锁骨下静脉(SCV)作为TIVAD经皮穿刺置入部位,以确定IJV是否具有任何优势。
从PubMed、Web of Science、Embase和OVID EMB Reviews数据库中检索自创建至2015年12月评估IJV和SCV这两个穿刺部位的所有随机对照试验(RCT)和队列研究。所有分析均采用随机效应模型。评估的终点包括与TIVAD相关的感染、导管相关的血栓形成并发症和主要机械并发症。
纳入了2008年至2015年间发表的12项研究,共3905例患者。我们的荟萃分析表明,两组之间与TIVAD相关的感染发生率(优势比[OR]0.71,95%置信区间[CI]0.48 - 1.04,P = 0.081)和导管相关的血栓形成并发症发生率(OR 0.76,95%CI 0.38 - 1.51,P = 0.433)无显著差异。然而,与SCV相比,IJV与总主要机械并发症风险降低相关(OR 0.38,95%CI 0.24 - 0.61,P < 0.001)。更具体地说,导管移位(OR 0.43,95%CI 0.22 - 0.84,P = 0.013)和功能障碍(OR 0.42,95%CI 0.28 - 0.62,P < 0.001)在SCV组比IJV组更常见;然而,两组之间导管断裂风险(OR 0.47,95%CI 0.21 - 1.05,P = 0.065)无显著差异。使用固定效应模型的敏感性分析显示IJV组导管断裂风险降低。
IJV似乎是SCV更安全的替代选择,总主要机械并发症、导管移位和功能障碍风险更低。然而,在明确推荐IJV部位作为TIVAD经皮植入的首选部位之前,有必要进行一项大规模且设计良好的RCT比较每个穿刺部位的并发症。