Subkutan venöz port katater uygulamalarımızın değerlendirilmesi: 6 yıllık klinik tecrübemiz

Year 2020, , 29 - 40, 23.04.2020

Cengiz Güven

https://doi.org/10.30569/adiyamansaglik.624148

Cited By: 2

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmada amacımız, malignite tanısı ile port kateter implante edilen hastaları retrospektif olarak incelemek ve deneyimlerimizi paylaşmaktır.
Gereç ve Yöntem: Ağustos 2012-Aralık 2018 tarihleri arasında Adıyaman Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Kalp ve Damar Cerrahisi Kliniğinde malignensi tanısıyla port kateteri takılan hastalar çalışmaya dâhil edildi. Toplam 231 hasta (97 kadın, 134 erkek) retrospektif olarak, hastane veri kayıt sisteminden incelenerek verileri (demografik veri, venöz erişim yolu, teknik ve komplikasyonlar) toplandı.
Bulgular: Yapılan dosya taramasında hastaların en geç 2 gün sonra kateterden kemoterapi aldıkları tespit edildi. Postoperatif takiplerde; 7 hastamızda kateter trombozu, 1 hastamızda kateter enfeksiyonu, 4 hastamızda kateter tünel bölgesinde hematom, 40 hastamızda ciltte ekimoz oluştuğu ve obez 1 hastamızda rezervuarın ters döndüğü tespit edildi. Subkutan yağ dokusu zayıf olan bir hastamızda ise rezervuarın cildi erode ederek cilt nekrozu oluşturduğu görüldü.
Sonuç: Subkutan venöz port kateteri kanser hastalarında etkin ve güvenilir bir venöz erişim yoludur. Uygun teknik ve tecrübeli ellerle yapıldığı taktirde minimal komplikasyon ve uzun süreli bir venöz erişim yolu sağlar.

Keywords

Kanser, Kemoterapi, Venöz port kateter, Komplikasyon

The evaluation of subcutaneous venous port catheter applications: 6 years of our clinical experience

Abstract

Aim: Our aim in this study is to retrospectively examine patients who were implanted a port catheter with a diagnosis of malignancy and share our experiences. 

Materials and Methods: The patients who had admission to port catheter with the diagnosis of malignancy between August 2012 and December 2018 at Adıyaman University Faculty of Medicine Cardiovascular Surgery Clinic were included in the study. A total of 231 patients (97 females, 134 males) were analyzed retrospectively from the hospital data recording system (demographic data, venous access, technique and complications).

Results: In the file scan, it was found that the patients had received chemotherapy from the catheter in no later than 2 days. In terms of complication, it was determined that catheter thrombosis was found in 7 patients, catheter infection in 1 patient, hematoma in the catheter tunnel area in 4 patients, skin ecchymosis in 40 patients and the reversal of the reservoir in 1 obese patient was detected. In one patient with weak subcutaneous adipose tissue, it was determined that the reservoir had caused skin necrosis by eroding the skin.

Conclusion: Subcutaneous venous port catheter is an effective and reliable venous access in cancer patients. It provides minimal complications and long-term venous access on condition that it is performed with appropriate techniques and experienced hands.

Keywords

Cancer, Chemotherapy, Venous port catheter, Complication

References

• 1. Biffi R, De Braud F, Orsi F. et al. A randomized, prospective trial of central venous ports connected to standard open-ended or Groshong catheters in adult oncology patients. Cancer. 2001;92:1204-1212.
• 2. Stanislav GV, Fitzgibbons RJ Jr, Bailey RT Jr. et al. Reliability of implantable central venous access devices in patients with cancer. Arch Surg. 1987;122:1280-1283
• 3. Di Carlo I, Cordio S, La Greca G. et al. Totally implantable venous access devices implanted surgically: a retrospective study on early and late complications. Arch Surg.. 2001;136:1050-1053.
• 4. Sticca RP, Dewing BD, Harris JD. Outcomes of surgical and radiologic placed implantable central venous access ports. Am J Surg. 2009;198:829-833.
• 5. Özdemir NY, Abalı H, Oksüzoğlu B, Budakoğlu B,Akmangit I, Zengin N. 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.
• 6. McGee DC, Gould MK. Preventing complications of central venous catheterization. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:1123-1133.
• 7. Güleç G, Büyükkınacı A. Kanser ve Psikiyatrik Bozukluklar. Psikiyatride Güncel Yaklaşımlar-Current Approaches in Psychiatry. 2011;3(2):343-367
• 8. Singh KR, Agarwal G, Nanda G et al (2014) Morbidity of chemotherapy administration and satisfaction in breast cancer patients: a comparative study of totally implantable venous access device (TIVAD) versus peripheral venous access usage. World J Surg. 38 (5) :1084–1092.
• 9. Gyves J, Ensminger W, Neiderhuber J, et al. Totally implanted system for intravenous chemotherapy in patients with cancer. Am J Med. 1982;73:841–845.
• 10. Iannacci L, Piomelli S. Supportive care for children with cancer. Guidelines of the Children’s Cancer Study Group. Use of venous access lines. Am J Pediatr Hematol Oncol.. 1984;6:277–281.
• 11. Güleser GN ve Taşçı S. Onkolojide Sık Kullanılan Santral Venöz Kateterleri ve Bakımı. F.Ü.Sağ.Bil.Tıp Derg. 2009;23 (1):47–51.
• 12. Samancı T, Mandel NM, Bozkurt AK, Kutlu F, Uras C. 115 Kanser hastasında port komplikasyonlarının değerlendirilmesi. Cerrahpaşa Tıp Dergisi. 2004;35;71-77.
• 13. Green E, Macartney G, et al. Managing central venous access devices in cancerpatients: A clinical practice guideline. CONJ/RCSIO-2008. doi:10.5737/1181912x18219.
• 14. Cowl CT, Weinstock JV, Al-jurf A, Ephgrave K, Murray JA, Dillon K. Complications and cost associated with parenteral nutrition delivered to hospitalized patients through either subclavian or peripherally-inserted central catheters. Clin Nutr. 2000;19:237-243.
• 15. Wigmore TJ, Smythe JF, Hacking MB, Raobaikady R, MacCallum NS. Effect of the implementation of NICE guidelines for ultrasound guidance on the complication rates associated with central venous catheter placement in patients presenting for routine surgery in a tertiary referral centre. British Journal of Anaesthesia. 2007;99:662–665.
• 16. Kesici S, Carus H, Turgut N, Ünlü N, Altan A, Kesici U. Başarılı Venöz Port Kateterizasyonu Sonrası Kateterin Spontan Yer Değişmesi. Okmeydanı Tıp Dergisi. 2011;27(1):49-53. 17. Yıldızeli B, Laçin T, Batirel HF, Yüksel M. Complications and management of long-termcentral venous accesscatheters and ports. J Vasc Access. 2004;5: 174-178.
• 18. Peres PW. Positioning central venous catheters a prospective survey. Anaesth Intensive Care, 1990;18(4):536-9.
• 19. Czepizak CA, O’Callaghan JM, et al. Evaluation of formulas for optimal positioning of central venous catheters. Chest. 1995;107;1662-1664.