In patients with cancer, the choice of an appropriate venous access device is crucial for effective treatment, minimizing complications, and reducing healthcare costs. Key management decisions, such as the timing of device removal post-therapy, can impact clinical outcomes. As current international guidelines lack specific directives for these issues, a global consensus of experts, representing different countries, was deemed appropriate.
Methods:
A panel of 11 experts from three continents, including oncologists and healthcare professionals, was chosen. After a comprehensive review of clinical trials and guidelines on central venous access devices (CVAD) in oncology published between January 2013 and December 2023, the panel developed and voted on specific recommendations for the selection and management of CVADs in patients with cancer, during a 2-day meeting.
Results:
The panel reached consensus on 10 issues concerning (a) indications for a CVAD, (b) available options for CVADs, (c) role of the staff and patients in the choice of CVAD, (d) factors influencing the selection of a port over an external catheter, (e) logistical requirements for port and external catheter insertion, (f) stakeholders responsible for port and external catheter insertion, (g) factors determining the removal of a port after completing the definitive therapy, and (h) recommended frequency of flushing when the CVAD is not in use.
Conclusions:
The results of the consensus may offer healthcare professionals a global view of some critical issues concerning CVADs for cancer therapy, helping to establish recommendations for local clinical practice.
WongCCHChoiHCWLeeVHF. Complications of central venous access devices used in palliative care settings for terminally ill cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancers (Basel)2023; 15: 4712.
6.
GallieniMPittirutiMBiffiR. Vascular access in oncology patients. CA Cancer J Clin2008; 58: 323–346.
7.
LiYCaiYGanX, et al. Application and comparison of different implanted ports in malignant tumor patients. World J Surg Oncol2016; 14: 251.
ChopraVFlandersSASaintS, et al. The Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters (MAGIC): results from a multispecialty panel using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method. Ann Intern Med2015; 163(6_Supplement): S1–S40.
10.
PittirutiMVan BoxtelTScoppettuoloG, et al. European recommendations on the proper indication and use of peripheral venous access devices (the ERPIUP consensus): a WoCoVA project. J Vasc Access2023; 24: 165–182.
11.
UllmanAJBernsteinSJBrownE, et al. The Michigan appropriateness guide for intravenous catheters in pediatrics: miniMAGIC. Pediatrics2020; 145(Suppl 3): S269–S284.
12.
PittirutiMCrocoliAZanaboniC, et al. The pediatric DAV-expert algorithm: a GAVeCeLT/GAVePed consensus for the choice of the most appropriate venous access device in children. J Vasc Access. Epub ahead of print 10 June 2024. DOI: 10.1177/11297298241256999.
BaroneGD’AndreaVAncoraG, et al. The neonatal DAV-expert algorithm: a GAVeCeLT/GAVePed consensus for the choice of the most appropriate venous access in newborns. Eur J Pediatr2023; 182: 3385–3395.
15.
Van RensMFPTBayoumiMAAVan De HoogenA. The ABBA project (Assess Better Before Access): a retrospective cohort study of neonatal intravascular device outcomes. Front Pediatr2022; 10: 980725.
16.
SchifferCAManguPBWadeJC, et al. Central venous catheter care for the patient with cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline. J Clin Oncol2013; 31: 1357–1370.
17.
SousaBFurlanettoJHutkaM, et al. Central venous access in oncology: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines. Ann Oncol2015; 26 Suppl5: v152–168.
18.
WoCoVA. 8th World Congress on Vascular Access, https://wocova.com/ (2024, accessed 21 June 2024).
CelliniMBergadanoACrocoliA, et al. Guidelines of the Italian Association of Pediatric Hematology and Oncology for the management of the central venous access devices in pediatric patients with onco-hematological disease. J Vasc Access2022; 23: 3–17.
21.
CampbellJLFletcherEAbelG, et al. Policies and strategies to retain and support the return of experienced GPs in direct patient care: the ReGROUP mixed-methods study. Health Serv Deliv Res2019; 7: 1–288.
22.
JonesJHunterD. Qualitative research: consensus methods for medical and health services research. BMJ1995; 311: 376–380.
23.
PiggottTBaldehTDietlB, et al. Standardized wording to improve efficiency and clarity of GRADE EtD frameworks in health guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol2022; 146: 106–122.
Manrique-RodríguezSHeras-HidalgoIPernia-LópezMS, et al. Standardization and chemical characterization of intravenous therapy in adult patients: a step further in medication safety. Drugs R D2021; 21: 39–64.
26.
PittirutiMScoppettuoloG. Manuale GAVeCeLT Dei PICC e dei Midline (2a Ed). EDRA, 2022.
RuggeriEGiannantonioMOstanR, et al. Choice of access route for artificial nutrition in cancer patients: 30 y of activity in a home palliative care setting. Nutrition2021; 90: 111264.
29.
DesruennesEGomasF. Quel accès veineux central pour la chimiothérapie ?La Presse Médicale2018; 47: 320–330.
30.
RobinsonASouiedOBotaAB, et al. Optimal vascular access strategies for patients receiving chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer: a systematic review. Breast Cancer Res Treat2018; 171: 607–620.
31.
TaxbroKHammarskjöldFThelinB, et al. Clinical impact of peripherally inserted central catheters vs implanted port catheters in patients with cancer: an open-label, randomised, two-centre trial. Br J Anaesth2019; 122: 734–741.
32.
BresciaFAnnettaMGPinelliF, et al. A GAVeCeLT bundle for PICC-port insertion: the SIP-Port protocol. J Vasc Access2023; 25: 1713–1720.
33.
MossJGWuOBodenhamAR, et al. Central venous access devices for the delivery of systemic anticancer therapy (CAVA): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet2021; 398: 403–415.
34.
PinelliFCeceroEDegl’InnocentiD, et al. Infection of totally implantable venous access devices: a review of the literature. J Vasc Access2018; 19: 230–242.
35.
LinLLiWChenC, et al. Peripherally inserted central catheters versus implantable port catheters for cancer patients: a meta-analysis. Front Oncol2023; 13: 1228092.
36.
LampertiMBiasucciDGDismaN, et al. European Society of Anaesthesiology guidelines on peri-operative use of ultrasound-guided for vascular access (PERSEUS vascular access). Eur J Anaesthesiol2020; 37: 344–376.
37.
LampertiMBodenhamARPittirutiM, et al. International evidence-based recommendations on ultrasound-guided vascular access. Intensive Care Med2012; 38: 1105–1117.
AnnettaMGBertoglioSBiffiR, et al. Management of antithrombotic treatment and bleeding disorders in patients requiring venous access devices: a systematic review and a GAVeCeLT consensus statement. J Vasc Access2022; 23: 660–671.
40.
OstroffMDMoureauNPittirutiM. Rapid Assessment of Vascular Exit Site and Tunneling Options (RAVESTO): a new decision tool in the management of the complex vascular access patients. J Vasc Access2023; 24: 311–317.
41.
CrocoliATorneselloAPittirutiM, et al. Central venous access devices in pediatric malignancies: a position paper of Italian Association of Pediatric Hematology and Oncology. J Vasc Access2015; 16: 130–136.
42.
PinelliFBalsoranoPMuraB, et al. Reconsidering the GAVeCeLT Consensus on catheter-related thrombosis, 13 years later. J Vasc Access2021; 22: 501–508.
43.
DebourdeauPFargeDBeckersM, et al. International clinical practice guidelines for the treatment and prophylaxis of thrombosis associated with central venous catheters in patients with cancer. J Thromb Haemost2013; 11: 71–80.
44.
MussaBPinelliFCortés ReyN, et al. Qualitative interviews and supporting evidence to identify the positive impacts of multidisciplinary vascular access teams. Hosp Pract (1995)2021; 49: 141–150.
45.
McDiarmidSScrivensNCarrierM, et al. Outcomes in a nurse-led peripherally inserted central catheter program: a retrospective cohort study. CMAJ Open2017; 5: E535–E539.
46.
MoureauNLampertiMKellyLJ, et al. Evidence-based consensus on the insertion of central venous access devices: definition of minimal requirements for training. Br J Anaesth2013; 110: 347–356.
47.
RyanCHesselgreavesHWuO, et al. Patient acceptability of three different central venous access devices for the delivery of systemic anticancer therapy: a qualitative study. BMJ Open2019; 9: e026077.
48.
BurbridgeBLimHDwernychukL, et al. Comparison of the quality of life of patients with breast or colon cancer with an arm vein port (TIVAD) versus a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC). Curr Oncol2021; 28: 1495–1506.
49.
BertoglioSCafieroFMeszarosP, et al. PICC-PORT totally implantable vascular access device in breast cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. J Vasc Access2020; 21: 460–466.
50.
BresciaFFabianiFBorsattiE, et al. Preprocedural ultrasound vascular assessment is essential to decision-making. J Vasc Access2021; 22: 849–851.
51.
LinFFMurphyNMartinezA, et al. Facilitators and barriers to evidence-based practice in central venous access device insertion and management in an intensive care unit: a qualitative study. Intensive Crit Care Nurs2024; 80: 103553.
52.
BertoglioSvan BoxtelTGoossensGA, et al. Improving outcomes of short peripheral vascular access in oncology and chemotherapy administration. J Vasc Access2017; 18: 89–96.
53.
Castro-SánchezECharaniEDrumrightLN, et al. Fragmentation of care threatens patient safety in peripheral vascular catheter management in acute care – a qualitative study. PLoS One2014; 9: e86167.
54.
CarrPJHigginsNSCookeML, et al. Vascular access specialist teams for device insertion and prevention of failure. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2018; 3: CD011421.
55.
PittirutiMHamiltonHBiffiR, et al. ESPEN Guidelines on Parenteral Nutrition: central venous catheters (access, care, diagnosis and therapy of complications). Clin Nutr2009; 28: 365–377.
56.
VinchurkarKMMastePTogaleMD, et al. Chemoport-associated complications and its management. Indian J Surg Oncol2020; 11: 394–397.
57.
MachatSEisenhuberEPfarlG, et al. Complications of central venous port systems: a pictorial review. Insights Imaging2019; 10: 86.
58.
O’GradyNPAlexanderMDellingerEPet al. Healthcare infection control practices advisory committee. Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol2002;23(12):759–769.
59.
PittirutiMBertoglioSScoppettuoloG, et al. Evidence-based criteria for the choice and the clinical use of the most appropriate lock solutions for central venous catheters (excluding dialysis catheters): a GAVeCeLT consensus. J Vasc Access2016; 17: 453–464.
60.
O’GradyNP. Prevention of central line–associated bloodstream infections. N Engl J Med2023; 389: 1121–1131.
61.
LovedayHPWilsonJAPrattRJ, et al. epic3: national evidence-based guidelines for preventing healthcare-associated infections in NHS hospitals in England. J Hosp Infect2014; 86: S1–S70.
62.
MarschallJMermelLAFakihM, et al. Strategies to prevent central line-associated bloodstream infections in acute care hospitals: 2014 update. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol2014; 35 Suppl2: S89–107.
63.
ChavesFGarnacho-MonteroJDel PozoJL, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of catheter-related bloodstream infection: clinical guidelines of the Spanish Society of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology and (SEIMC) and the Spanish Society of Spanish Society of Intensive and Critical Care Medicine and Coronary Units (SEMICYUC). Med Intensiva2018; 42: 5–36.
