Impact of central venous port implantation method and access choice on outcomes.

BACKGROUND

Although the number of patients who need central venous ports for permanent vascular access is increasing, there is still no "gold standard" for the implantation technique.

AIM: To identify the implantation technique that should be favored.

METHODS

Two hundred central venous port-implanted patients in a tertiary hospital were retrospectively evaluated. Patients were assigned into two groups according to the access method. The first group comprised patients whose jugular veins were used, and the second group comprised patients whose subclavian veins were used. Groups were evaluated regarding age, sex, application side, primary diagnosis, active follow-up period in the hospital, chemotherapy agents administered, number of complications, and the Clavien-Dindo severity score. The distribution of the variables was tested with the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and the Mann-Whitney U test. The χ 2 test was used to analyze the variables.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference between the groups regarding age, sex, side, number of chemotherapy drugs, and duration of port usage (P > 0.05). Only 2 patients in group 1 had complications, whereas in group 2 we observed 19 patients with complications (P < 0.05). No port occlusion was found in group 1, but the catheters of 4 patients were occluded in group 2. One port was infected in group 1 compared to three infected ports in group 2. Two port ruptures, two pneumothorax, one revision due to a mechanical problem, one tachyarrhythmia during implantation, and four suture line problems were also recorded in group 2 patients. We also showed that it would be sufficient to evaluate and wash ports once every 2 mo.

CONCLUSION

Our results robustly confirm that the jugular vein route is safer than the subclavian vein approach for central venous port implantation.