Tokue Hiroyuki, Tokue Azusa, Tsushima Yoshito
Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Gunma University Hospital, 3-39-22 Showa-machi, Maebashi, Gunma, 371-8511, Japan.
World J Surg Oncol. 2022 Mar 22;20(1):91. doi: 10.1186/s12957-022-02565-7.
If mechanical complications associated with a central venous port (CVP) system are suspected, evaluation with a flow confirmation study (FCS) using fluorescence fluoroscopy or digital subtraction angiography should be performed. Evaluations of mechanical complications related to CVP of the chest wall using FCS performed via the subclavian vein have been reported. However, the delayed complications of a CVP placed in the upper arm have not been sufficiently evaluated in a large population. We evaluated the effectiveness of FCS of CVPs implanted following percutaneous cannulation of the subclavian (chest wall group) or brachial (upper arm group) vein.
A CVP was implanted in patients with advanced cancer requiring chemotherapy. FCS was performed if there were complaints suggestive of CVP dysfunction when initiating chemotherapy.
CVPs were placed in the brachial vein in 390 patients and in the subclavian vein in 800 patients. FCS was performed in 26/390 (6.7%) patients in the upper arm group and 40/800 (5.0%) patients in the chest wall group. The clinical characteristics of the patients were similar in both groups. The duration of CVP implantation until FCS was significantly shorter in the upper arm group (136 ± 96.6 vs. 284 ± 260, p = 0.022). After FCS, the incidence of CVP removal/reimplantation being deemed unnecessary was higher in the upper arm group (21/26 [80.8%] vs. 26/40 [65.0%], p = 0.27). In the upper arm group, no cases of catheter kinking or catheter-related injury were observed, and the incidence of temporary obstruction because of blood clots that could be continued using CVP was significantly higher than that in the chest wall group (10/26 [38.5%] vs. 4/40 [10.0%], p = 0.012).
FCS was effective in evaluating CVP system-related mechanical complications and deciding whether removal and reimplantation were required in both groups.
如果怀疑中心静脉置管(CVP)系统存在机械并发症,应使用荧光透视或数字减影血管造影进行血流确认研究(FCS)评估。已有报道通过锁骨下静脉进行FCS评估胸壁CVP相关的机械并发症。然而,上臂置入CVP的延迟并发症在大量人群中尚未得到充分评估。我们评估了经皮穿刺锁骨下静脉(胸壁组)或肱静脉(上臂组)后置入CVP的FCS效果。
为需要化疗的晚期癌症患者置入CVP。开始化疗时若有提示CVP功能障碍的主诉,则进行FCS。
390例患者的CVP置入肱静脉,800例患者的CVP置入锁骨下静脉。上臂组26/390(6.7%)例患者和胸壁组40/800(5.0%)例患者进行了FCS。两组患者的临床特征相似。上臂组直至FCS时CVP植入的持续时间显著短于胸壁组(136±96.6 vs. 284±260,p = 0.022)。FCS后,上臂组认为无需移除/重新植入CVP的发生率更高(21/26 [80.8%] vs. 26/40 [65.0%],p = 0.27)。在上臂组,未观察到导管扭结或导管相关损伤的病例,因血凝块导致的可继续使用CVP的临时阻塞发生率显著高于胸壁组(10/26 [38.5%] vs. 4/40 [10.0%],p = 0.012)。
FCS在评估两组中与CVP系统相关的机械并发症以及决定是否需要移除和重新植入方面是有效的。