IRCCS European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy.
Catholic University Hospital, Rome, Italy.
J Vasc Access. 2022 Nov;23(6):861-863. doi: 10.1177/11297298211015058. Epub 2021 May 7.
Early in 2021, the Infusion Nursing Society has released the latest version of the Infusion Therapy Standards of Practice. In the last two decades, these Standards have been representing one of the most important evidence-based documents available in the world of venous access. Nevertheless, we were quite concerned reading a recommendation included in chapter 26 (Vascular Access Device Planning: practice recommendation I, C): "Use a patient's port, unless contraindicated (e.g. existing complication) as the preferred IV route in preference to insertion of an additional VAD." Such recommendation is offered not on the basis of evidence, but as experts' opinion ("Committee Consensus"). This Editorial deals with the opinion of GAVeCeLT (The Italian Study Group for Long Term Central Venous Access) that strongly discourage the use of ports for intravenous treatment different from chemotherapy (or from the therapy that specifically required that long term, infrequent access). The rationale for this choice is based on the consideration that the patient's port-if used in a non-specialty ward-would be at high risk of complications, some of them potentially leading to the loss of the device, and that such complications might be particularly difficult to manage in this setting. The continuous or frequent use of a port transforms it into an external device, thus cancelling the main advantage of a totally subcutaneous location, while adding a significant disadvantage (need for repeated percutaneous punctures and risk of extravasation/infiltration due to improper insertion or dislocation of the non-coring needle). One exception is the possible use of port for radio-diagnostic purposes (as long as the port is power injectable). This strategy may be associated with advantages for the patient, and imaging quality improvement, but requires the adoption of specific protocols for prevention of infective and mechanical complications.
2021 年初,输液治疗学会发布了最新版的输液治疗实践标准。在过去的二十年中,这些标准一直是全球静脉通路领域中最重要的循证文件之一。然而,我们在阅读第 26 章(血管通路装置规划:实践建议 I,C)中的一条建议时感到非常担忧:“除非存在禁忌症(例如现有并发症),否则应将患者的端口作为首选静脉途径,而不是插入额外的血管通路装置。”这种建议不是基于证据,而是专家意见(“委员会共识”)。本社论涉及 GAVeCeLT(意大利长期中央静脉通路研究组)的意见,该意见强烈反对将端口用于除化疗以外的静脉治疗(或专门需要长期、不频繁进入的治疗)。这种选择的依据是考虑到,如果在非专业病房使用患者的端口,它将面临高并发症风险,其中一些可能导致设备丢失,并且在这种情况下,这些并发症可能特别难以处理。端口的连续或频繁使用将其转变为外部设备,从而取消了完全皮下位置的主要优势,同时增加了一个显著的劣势(由于非穿透性针头插入不当或脱位,需要反复进行经皮穿刺和渗漏/渗透的风险)。一个例外是端口可能用于放射性诊断目的(只要端口可进行动力注射)。这种策略可能对患者和影像学质量的提高有优势,但需要采取特定的预防感染和机械并发症的方案。