Azygos Vein Thrombosis Secondary to a Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter (PICC)

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. e82-e83 ◽  
Author(s):  
Moayid M. Sherif ◽  
Rebecca Hall ◽  
Cameron K.M.W. Schauer
2016 ◽  
pp. bcr2016216657 ◽  
Author(s):  
Goutham Talari ◽  
Sholabomi Oyewole-Eletu ◽  
Preetham Talari ◽  
Saurabh Parasramka

2015 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-71 ◽  
Author(s):  
Junren Kang ◽  
Wenyan Sun ◽  
Hailong Li ◽  
Enling Ma ◽  
Kai Wang ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-54 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paolo Balsorano ◽  
Gianni Virgili ◽  
Gianluca Villa ◽  
Mauro Pittiruti ◽  
Stefano Romagnoli ◽  
...  

Background: Technical factors at the moment of catheter insertion might have a role in peripherally inserted central catheter–related thrombotic risk. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to define the actual rate of peripherally inserted central catheter–related symptomatic deep vein thrombosis in patients in whom catheter insertion was performed according to ultrasound guidance, appropriate catheter size choice, and proper verification of tip location. Methods: We searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Only prospective observational studies published in peer-reviewed journals after 2010 up to November 2018 reporting peripherally inserted central catheter–related deep vein thrombosis rate were included. All studies were of adult patients who underwent peripherally inserted central catheter insertion. Results were restricted to those studies which included in their methods ultrasound guidance for venipuncture, catheter tip location, and a catheter size selection strategy. Random-effect meta-analyses and arcsine transformation for binomial data were performed to pool deep vein thrombosis weighted frequencies. Results: Of the 1441 studies identified, 15 studies involving 5420 patients and 5914 peripherally inserted central catheters fulfilled our inclusion criteria. The weighted frequency of peripherally inserted central catheter–related deep vein thrombosis was 2.4% (95% confidence interval = 1.5–3.3) and remained low in oncologic patients (2.2%, 95% confidence interval = 0.6–3.9). Thrombotic rate was higher in onco-hematologic patients (5.9%, 95% confidence interval = 1.2–10). Considerable heterogeneity (I2 = 74.9) was observed and all studies were considered at high risk of attrition bias. Conclusions: A proper technique is crucial at the moment of peripherally inserted central catheter insertion. Peripherally inserted central catheter–related deep vein thrombosis rate appears to be low when evidence-based technical factors are taken into consideration during the insertion procedure.


2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 460-466 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sergio Bertoglio ◽  
Ferdinando Cafiero ◽  
Paolo Meszaros ◽  
Emanuela Varaldo ◽  
Eva Blondeaux ◽  
...  

Background and objectives: The increasing use of arm totally implantable vascular access devices for breast cancer patients who require chemotherapy has led to a greater risk of complications and failures and, in particular, to upper extremity deep vein thrombosis. This study aims to investigate the outcomes of the arm peripherally inserted central catheter-PORT technique in breast cancer patients. Methods: The peripherally inserted central catheter-PORT technique is an evolution of the standard arm-totally implantable vascular access device implant based on guided ultrasound venous access in the proximal third of the upper limb with subsequent placement of the reservoir at the middle third of the arm. A prospective study was conducted on 418 adult female breast cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. The primary study outcome was peripherally inserted central catheter-PORT failure. Results: Median follow-up was 215 days. Complications occurred in 29 patients (6.9%) and failure resulting in removal of the device in 11 patients (2.6%). The main complication we observed was upper extremity deep vein thrombosis, 10 (2.4%); all patients were rescued by anticoagulant treatment without peripherally inserted central catheter-PORT removal. The main reason for removal was reservoir pocket infection: 4 (0.9%) with an infection rate of 0.012 per 1000 catheter days. Cumulative 1-year risk of failure was 3.6% (95% confidence interval, 1.3%–7.1%). With regard to the patients’ characteristics, body mass index <22.5 was the only significant risk for failure ( p = 0.027). Conclusion: The peripherally inserted central catheter-PORT is a safe vascular device for chemotherapy delivery that achieves similar clinical results as traditional long-term vascular access devices (peripherally inserted central catheter and arm totally implantable vascular access device, in particular) in breast cancer patients.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document