Fracture of Totally Implanted Central Venous Access Devices: A Propensity-Score-Matched Comparison of Risks for Groshong Silicone versus Polyurethane Catheters

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate retrospectively the fracture risk of totally implanted venous access devices connected to Groshong silicone (SC) versus polyurethane (PU) catheters, inserted via the internal jugular vein.

Materials and methods

The study population comprised 384 SC and 221 PU central venous catheters implanted via the internal jugular vein. The presence of catheter fracture was evaluated. Variables possibly related to catheter fracture were evaluated. First, in order to determine the factors associated with fracture, fracture rates were compared with the log-rank test between the two groups divided by each of the variables. Then, in order to adjust for potential confounders, propensity-score matching of the variables was employed in the two catheter groups. Finally, the rates of fracture were compared between the two propensity-score-matched catheter groups.

Results

There were 16 cases of catheter fracture, for an overall fracture percentage of 2.6% (16/605). All 16 cases of fracture occurred in the SC catheter group. Smaller patient body mass index (p = 0.039), deeper catheter tip position (p = 0.022), and SC catheters (p = 0.019) were significantly associated with fracture. With the propensity-score-matching method, 180 cases were selected in each catheter group. Comparison of the two propensity-score-matched groups showed that fracture rates for SC catheters remained significantly (p = 0.018) higher than those for PU catheters.

Conclusions

Ports connected to Groshong SC catheters – when implanted via the internal jugular vein – posed a higher risk of fracture than did ports connected to PU catheters.

Keywords

Breakage Central venous catheter Fracture Polyurethane Risk Silicone

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Chan

Tan

Kaw

et al.

Radiological placement of 211 central venous catheters: outcome and complications.

Ann Acad Med Singapore 1999;28(4):481–487

Mey

Glasmacher

Hahn

et al.

Evaluation of an ultrasound-guided technique for central venous access via the internal jugular vein in 493 patients.

Support Care Cancer 2003;11(3):148–155

Kusminsky

Complications of central venous catheterization.

J Am Coll Surg 2007;204(4):681–696

Nayeemuddin

Pherwani

Asquith

Imaging and management of complications of central venous catheters.

Clin Radiol 2013;68(5):529–544

Okada

Shiraishi

Yamashiro

et al.

A retrospective statistical analysis of the late complications associated with central venous port placements.

Jpn J Radiol 2015;33(1):21–25

Lin

Chan

Hsieh

Huang

The mechanisms of failure of totally implantable central venous access system: analysis of 73 cases with fracture of catheter.

Eur J Surg Oncol 2010;36(1):100–103

Cheng

Tsai

Yang

Han

Percutaneous retrieval of dislodged totally implantable central venous access system in 92 cases: experience in a single hospital.

Eur J Radiol 2009;69(2):346–350

Feng

et al.

Catheter fracture of intravenous ports and its management.

World J Surg 2011;35(11):2403–2410

Sawayama

Hayashi

Watanabe

Takamori

Beppu

Baba

The central vein access port and catheter in outpatient chemotherapy for colorectal cancer: a retrospective study of 101 patients.

Surg Today 2012;42(1):29–34

10.

Surov

Wienke

Carter

et al.

Intravascular embolization of venous catheter—causes, clinical signs, and management: a systematic review.

JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2009;33(6):677–685

11.

Ong

Venkatesh

Lau

Wang

Prospective randomized comparative evaluation of proximal valve polyurethane and distal valve silicone peripherally inserted central catheters.

J Vasc Interv Radiol 2010;21(8):1191–1196

12.

Di Giacomo

Comparison of three peripherally-inserted central catheters: pilot study.

Br J Nurs 2009;18(1):8–16

13.

Cohen

Dagli

Stavropoulos

Jr et al.

Silicone and polyurethane tunneled infusion catheters: a comparison of durability and breakage rates.

J Vasc Interv Radiol 2011;22(5):638–641

14.

Hwang

Stavropoulos

Shlansky-Goldberg

et al.

Tunneled infusion catheter breakage: frequency and repair kit outcomes.

J Vasc Interv Radiol 2008;19(2 Pt 1):201–206

15.

Vandoni

Guerra

Sanna

Bogen

Cavalli

Gertsch

Randomised comparison of complications from three different permanent central venous access systems.

Swiss Med Wkly 2009;139(21-22):313–316

16.

Seckold

Walker

Dwyer

A comparison of silicone and polyurethane PICC lines and postinsertion complication rates: a systematic review.

J Vasc Access 2015;16(3):167–177

17.

Rosenbaum

Rubin

The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects.

Biometrika 1983;70(1):41–55

18.

Hinke

Zandt-Stastny

Goodman

Quebbeman

Krzywda

Andris

Pinch-off syndrome: a complication of implantable subclavian venous access devices.

Radiology 1990;177(2):353–356

19.

Macdonald

Watt

McNally

Edwards

Moss

Comparison of technical success and outcome of tunneled catheters inserted via the jugular and subclavian approaches.

J Vasc Interv Radiol 2000;11(2 Pt 1):225–231

20.

Silberzweig

Mitty

Central venous access: low internal jugular vein approach using imaging guidance.

AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998;170(6):1617–1620

21.

Balsorano

Galducci

De Fanti

Evans

De Gaudio

Pelagatti

Fractures of totally implantable central venous ports: more than fortuity. A three-year single center experience.

J Vasc Access 2014;15(5):391–395