リケラボ論文検索は、全国の大学リポジトリにある学位論文・教授論文を一括検索できる論文検索サービスです。

リケラボ 全国の大学リポジトリにある学位論文・教授論文を一括検索するならリケラボ論文検索大学・研究所にある論文を検索できる

リケラボ 全国の大学リポジトリにある学位論文・教授論文を一括検索するならリケラボ論文検索大学・研究所にある論文を検索できる

大学・研究所にある論文を検索できる 「Difficult removal of totally implantable venous access devices in adult patients : Incidence, risk factors, and management.」の論文概要。リケラボ論文検索は、全国の大学リポジトリにある学位論文・教授論文を一括検索できる論文検索サービスです。
リケラボ

コピーが完了しました

URLをコピーしました

論文の公開元へ論文の公開元へ
書き出し

Difficult removal of totally implantable venous access devices in adult patients : Incidence, risk factors, and management.

CHATANI Shohei 0000-0001-5080-2333 TSUKII Ryota NAGASAWA Kyohei HASEGAWA Takaaki MURATA Shinichi KATO Mina YAMAURA Hidekazu ONAYA Hiroaki Matsuo Keitaro 0000-0003-1761-6314 WATANABE Yoshiyuki 20362733 0000-0003-3906-3730 INABA Yoshitaka 滋賀医科大学

2022.01.27

概要

Background:
Totally implantable venous access devices (TIVADs) have played an important role of medical oncology practice. However, operators sometimes encounter considerable difficulty when removing TIVADs. This study aimed to investigate the incidence of difficult TIVAD removal, determine associated risk factors, and investigate interventional radiology (IR) approaches to difficult removal.
Methods:
A total of 514 TIVAD removal procedures performed in a single-center between January 2014 and May 2021 were retrospectively analyzed to determine incidence of difficult removal and associated risk factors. IR approaches applied in difficult removal cases were also reviewed.
Results:
The incidence of difficult removal was 7.4% (38/514). In univariable analysis, indwelling duration, silicone catheter, and subcutaneous leakage of fluid were identified as significant risk factors for difficult removal. Multivariable analysis showed that indwelling duration per year (odds ratio (OR), 1.46; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.28-1.67; p < 0.01) and subcutaneous leakage of fluid (OR, 6.04; 95% CI, 2.45-14.91; p < 0.01) were significantly associated with difficult removal. In the 38 difficult removal cases, 32 TIVADs could be removed using more dissection and traction than the standard removal method. In the other 6, TIVADs were successfully removed by using several IR techniques, including insertion of a guide wire (n = 1), dissection using an introducer sheath (n = 2), pushing with a dilator (n = 1), and pulling with a snare (n = 2).
Conclusion:
Difficult TIVAD removal is uncommon. However, operators should expect it when removing long indwelling TIVADs and those with subcutaneous leakage. IR approaches to difficult removal are minimally invasive and can be useful.

論文の公開元へ

関連論文

関連論文をもっと見る

参考文献

1. Niederhuber JE, Ensminger W, Gyves JW et al. Totally implanted venous and arterial access system to replace external catheters in cancer treatment. Surgery 1982; 92: 706–712.

2. Biffi R, Toro A, Pozzi S et al. Totally implantable vascular access devices 30 years after the first procedure. What has changed and what is still unsolved? Support Care Cancer 2014; 22: 1705–1714.

3. Tumay LV, Guner OS. Availability of totally implantable venous access devices in cancer patients is high in the long term: a seven-year follow-up study. Support Care Cancer 2021; 29: 3531–3538.

4. Voog E, Campion L, du Rusquec P et al. Totally implantable venous access ports: a prospective long term study of early and late complications in adult patients with cancer. Support Care Cancer 2018; 26: 81–89.

5. Fischer L, Knebel P, Schroder S et al. Reasons for explantation of totally implantable access ports: a multivariate analysis of 385 consecutive patients. Ann Surg Oncol 2008; 15: 1124–1129.

6. Dede D, Akmangit I, Yildrim ZN et al. Ultrasonography and fluoroscopy-guided insertion of chest ports. Eur J Surg Oncol 2008; 34: 1340–1343.

7. Tsuruta S, Goto Y, Miyake H et al. Late complications associated with totally implantable venous access port implantation via the internal jugular vein. Support Care Cancer 2020; 28: 2761–2768.

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

9. Denny DF Jr. Placement and management of long-term central venous access catheters and ports. AJR Am J Roentegenol 1993; 161: 385–393.

10. Patel PA, Parra DA, Bath R et al. IR Approaches to difficult removals of totally implanted venous access port catheters in children: a single-center experience. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2016; 27: 876–881.

11. Wilson GJ, van Noesel MM, Hop WC et al. The catheter is stuck: complications experienced during removal of a totally implantable venous access device. A single- center study in 200 children. J Pediatr Surg 2006; 41: 1694–1698.

12. Jones SA, Giacomantonio M. A complication associated with central line removal in the pediatric population: retained fixed catheter fragments. J Pediatr Surg 2003; 38: 594–596.

13. Chan BK, Rupasinghe SN, Hennessey I et al. Retained central venous lines (CVLs) after attempted removal: an 11-year series and literature review. J Pediatr Surg 2013; 48: 1887–1891.

14. Milbrandt K, Beaudry P, Anderson R et al. A multiinstitutional review of central venous line complications: retained intravascular fragments. J Pediatr Surg 2009; 44: 972–976.

15. Huang SC, Tsai MS, Lai HS. A new technique to remove a “stuck” totally implantable venous access catheter. J Pediatr Surg 2009; 44: 1465–1467.

16. Hong JH. An easy technique for the removal of a hemodialysis catheter stuck in central veins. J Vasc Access 2010; 11: 59–62.

17. Forauer AR, Theoharis C. Histologic changes in the human vein wall adjacentto indwelling central venous catheters. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2003; 14: 1163–1168.

18. Forauer AR, Theoharis CG, Dasika NL. Jugular vein catheter placement: histologic features and development of catheter-related (fibrin) sheaths in a swine model. Radiology 2006; 240: 427–434.

19. Suojanen JN, Brophy DP, Nasser I. Thrombus on indwelling central venous catheters: the histopathology of “Fibrin sheaths”. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2000; 23: 194–197.

20. Xiang DZ, Verbeken EK, Van Lommel AT et al. Intimal hyperplasia after long-term venous catheterization. Eur Surg Res 2000; 32: 236–245.

21. Upton J, Mulliken JB, Murray JE. Major intravenous extravasation injuries. Am J Surg 1979; 137: 497–506.

22. Boulanger J, Ducharme A, Dufour A et al. Management of the extravasation of anti- neoplastic agents. Support Care Cancer 2015; 23: 1459–1971.

23. Hinke DH, Zandt-Stastny DA, Goodman LR et al. Pinch-off syndrome: a complication of implantable subclavian venous access devices. Radiology 1990; 177: 356–366.

24. Akgun S, Ak K, Tugrular S et al. Median sternotomy for an unexpected complication of permanent hemodialysis catheters: “stuck catheter”. Vasa 2008; 37: 293–296.

25. Ryan SE, Hadziomerovic A, Aquino J. Endoluminal dilation technique to remove “stuck” tunneled hemodialysis catheters. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2012; 23: 1089–1093.

26. Hong JH. A breakthrough technique for the removal of a hemodialysis catheter stuck in the central vein: endoluminal balloon dilatation of the stuck catheter. J Vasc Access 2011; 12: 381–384.

27. Hassan A, Khalifa M, Al-Akraa M et al. Six cases of retained central venous haemodialysis access catheters. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2006; 21: 2005–2008.

28. Field M, Pugh J, Asquith J et al. A stuck hemodialysis central venous catheter. J Vasc Access 2008; 9: 301–303.

29. Mortensen A, Afshari A, Henneberg SW et al. Stuck long-term indwelling central venous catheters in adolescents: three cases and a short topical review. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2010; 54: 777–780.

参考文献をもっと見る