The effect of chemotherapy type and timing among the other factors on patency of totally implantable vascular access devices in colorectal carcinoma

Abstract

Purpose:

Catheter-related complications are observed in infusion of chemotherapy, and these were encountered with targeted therapies. Our principle is to study non-mechanical effects of type and initiation time of chemotherapy among the other factors on patency of totally implantable vascular access devices (TIVAD) inserted in patients with colorectal carcinoma.

Methods:

This is a one-center retrospective cohort study. We analyzed TIVAD related complications in 624 patients with colorectal carcinoma. The patients were categorized by chemotherapy type (non-target-directed chemotherapy agents (Group A), bevacizumab (Group B), and cetuximab (Group C)). Additionally, we divided the patients into groups by the time interval between TIVAD insertion and chemotherapy initiation. According to our study, a 3-day period was optimal. Therefore, we named the groups as within 3 days and beyond 3 days, and called this process 3 days cut-off. Age, gender, jugular-subclavian access, platelet count, INR, the types of chemotherapy, and the initiation time of chemotherapy were investigated by survival tests. We compared chemotherapy type groups both one-by-one and combined into one group.

Results:

The TIVADs were removed due to the complications in 11 patients of Group A, 6 patients of Group B, and 3 patients of Group C. Only chemotherapy type was significant (p = 0.011) in Cox regression test. A clear difference (p = 0.010) was detected between the catheter patency of Group A and combination of Groups B and C, because of skin necrosis and thrombosis. Within 3 days of their first chemotherapy day, an important difference between Group A and Group C (p = 0.013) was observed in the TIVAD patency. The same observation was made between Group A and Group B (p = 0.007). Beyond this period, no major difference was detected (p = 0.341).

Conclusion:

A major effect on catheter patency was detected by using the target-directed chemotherapy agent within 3 days, which should be considered in target-directed chemotherapy.

Keywords

Vascular access devices radiology neoplasms bevacizumab cetuximab colorectal cancer

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ozdemir

Abali

Oksüzoğlu

, et al. It appears to be safe to start chemotherapy on the day of implantation through subcutaneous venous port catheters in inpatient setting. Support Care Cancer 2009; 17: 399–403.

Caers

Fontaine

Vinh-Hung

, et al. Catheter tip position as a risk factor for thrombosis associated with the use of subcutaneous infusion ports. Support Care Cancer 2005; 13(5): 325–331.

Berardi

Rinaldi

Santini

, et al. Increased rates of local complication of central venous catheters in the targeted anticancer therapy era: a 2-year retrospective analysis. Support Care Cancer 2015; 23(5): 1295–1302.

Dean

Sweeny

Harari

, et al. Wound healing following combined radiation and cetuximab therapy in head and neck cancer patients. J Wound Care 2011; 20: 166–170.

Kriegel

Cottu

Fourchotte

, et al. Wound healing and catheter thrombosis after implantable venous access device placement in 266 breast cancers treated with bevacizumab therapy. Anticancer Drugs 2011; 22: 1020–1023.

Aribaş

Arda

Aribaş

, et al. Comparison of subcutaneous central venous port via jugular and subclavian access in 347 patients at a single center. Exp Ther Med 2012; 4: 675–680.

Walser

. Venous access ports: indications, implantation technique, follow-up, and complications. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2012; 35: 751–764.

Beckers

Ruven

Seldenrijk

, et al. Risk of thrombosis and infections of central venous catheters and totally implanted access ports in patients treated for cancer. Thromb Res 2010; 125: 318–321.

Haggstrom

Parmar

Brungs

. Central venous catheter thrombosis in cancer: a multi-centre retrospective study investigating risk factors and contemporary trends in management. Clin Med Insights Oncol 2020; 14: 1179554920953097.

10.

Nalluri

Chu

Keresztes

, et al. Risk of venous thromboembolism with the angiogenesis inhibitor bevacizumab in cancer patients: a meta-analysis. JAMA 2008; 300: 2277–2285.

11.

Scappaticci

Skillings

Holden

, et al. Arterial thromboembolic events in patients with metastatic carcinoma treated with chemotherapy and bevacizumab. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007; 99: 1232–1239.

12.

Cil

Canyiğit

Peynircioğlu

, et al. Subcutaneous venous port implantation in adult patients: a single center experience. Diagn Interv Radiol 2006; 12: 93–98.

13.

Chang

Tsai

, et al. Higher complication risk of totally implantable venous access port systems in patients with advanced cancer - a single institution retrospective analysis. Palliat Med 2013; 27: 185–191.

14.

Touré

Vanhems

Lombard-Bohas

, et al. Totally implantable central venous access port infections in patients with digestive cancer: incidence and risk factors. Am J Infect Control 2012; 40: 935–939.

15.

Zawacki

Walker

DeVasher

, et al. Wound dehiscence or failure to heal following venous access port placement in patients receiving bevacizumab therapy. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2009; 20: 624–627.

16.

Scappaticci

Fehrenbacher

Cartwright

, et al. Surgical wound healing complications in metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated with bevacizumab. J Surg Oncol 2005; 91: 173–180.

17.

Grenader

Goldberg

Verstandig

, et al. Indwelling central venous access port insertion during bevacizumab-based therapy. Anticancer Drugs 2010; 21(7): 704–707.

18.

Erinjeri

Fong

Kemeny

, et al. Timing of administration of bevacizumab chemotherapy affects wound healing after chest wall port placement. Cancer 2011; 117(6): 1296–1301.

19.

Biffi

Orsi

Pozzi

, et al. 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; 20(5): 935–940.

20.

Gonda

. Principles of subcutaneous port placement. Tech Vasc Interv Radiol 2011; 14: 198–203.

21.

Inaba

Yamaura

Sato

, et al. Central venous access port-related complications in outpatient chemotherapy for colorectal cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2007; 37: 951–954.

22.

Ding

Wang

, et al. Shanghai expert consensus on totally implantable access ports 2019. Journal of Interventional Medicine 2019; 2: 141–145.

23.

Totally implantable central venous access ports. https://www.health.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0030/444486/icare-port-guideline.pdf.

24.

Kim

Hur

Jeon

. Malfunction of totally implantable central venous ports. Iran J Radiol 2017; 14: e13455.

25.

Kumar

Jha

Bichoo

, et al. Wide angled ‘V’ is the perfect disposition of a TIVAD catheter when right internal jugular vein is cannulated to gain central access. Gastroenterol Rep 2019; 7: 374–375.

26.

Aribas

Tiken

Aribas

, et al. Factors on patency periods of subcutaneous central venous port: long-term results of 1408 patients. Iran J Radiol 2017; 14: e36816.

27.

Chen

Liu

, et al. Heparin versus 0.9% saline solution to maintain patency of totally implanted venous access ports in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Nurs Pract 2021; 27: e12913.

28.

Sorg

Tilkorn

Hager

, et al. Skin wound healing: an update on the current knowledge and concepts. Eur Surg Res 2017; 58: 81–94.