Scientific paperLong-term central venous catheters: size and location do matter
Section snippets
Methods
A retrospective review over a 1-year time period of all consecutively placed long-term central venous catheters in the operating room was performed. The study sources included dictated surgical notes, operating room records, hospital records, radiology reports, office charts, and quality-assurance conference records. The patient and surgical data were recorded and analyzed (StatGraphics, Herndon, VA). The most common technique of insertion has been described previously by Stellato et al [3].
Results
During a 1-year time period, 502 long-term venous catheters were placed in patients in the operating room. This included 251 externally tunneled centrally inserted venous access devices without a subcutaneous port, 94 with a subcutaneous port, 141 dialysis catheters, and 16 plasmapheresis catheters. To control the inherent differences in placement and indications between these specific catheters, the study was limited to the 230 consecutively placed externally tunneled, silicone rubber, venous
Comments
Many complications can occur with the insertion of long-term central venous access catheters including pneumothorax, hemothorax, subclavian artery puncture, catheter malposition, pericardial tamponade, air embolization, chylothorax, hydrothorax, nerve injury, arrhythmia, and osteomyelitis of the clavicle [4]. The overall major complication rate was 1% in our study, which is consistent with other studies that have shown how safely these catheters can be placed. Many studies report complications
Conclusions
These data indicate that placing large triple-lumen catheters and right subclavian vein punctures were associated with a significantly greater technical difficulties and a greater complication rate. Overall the complication rate was low, showing that the placement of these catheters is safe. Based on these findings we recommend using the smallest catheter possible and to attempt initial placement via the left subclavian vein.
References (16)
- et al.
An evaluation of two methods for chronic central venous access device placement
Am J Surg
(1999) - et al.
The “pinch-off sign”a warning of impending problems with permanent subclavian catheters
Am J Surg
(1984) - et al.
A Silicone rubber right atrial catheter for prolonged parenteral alimentation
Surg Gynecol Obstet
(1973) - et al.
A modified right atrial catheter for access to the venous system in marrow transplant recipients
Surg Gynecol Obstet
(1979) - et al.
Direct central vein puncture for silicone rubber catheter insertion
Surgery
(1981) Vascular access techniques and devices in the pediatric patient
Surg Clin North Am
(1992)- et al.
Preventing complications of central venous cauterization
N Engl J Med
(2003) - et al.
An anatomic landmark to simplify subclavian vein cannulationthe “Deltoid Tuberosity”
Anesth Analg
(2005)
Cited by (14)
Procedures for Vascular Access
2019, A Practice of Anesthesia for Infants and ChildrenProcedures for Vascular Access
2018, A Practice of Anesthesia for Infants and ChildrenTemporary endocavitary pacemaker implantation
2012, Medicina IntensivaProcedures for Vascular Access
2009, A Practice of Anesthesia for Infants and ChildrenProcedures for vascular access
2008, A Practice of Anesthesia for Infants and Children: Expert ConsultUltrasonography and fluoroscopy-guided insertion of chest ports
2008, European Journal of Surgical OncologyCitation Excerpt :It was reported that image guidance could decrease the difference of success between experienced and inexperienced operators, and also could be of help to a skillful operator who is otherwise unable to cannulate.7 In the presented series, the technical success of image-guided catheterization was 100% in 1418 patients, as in other radiologic series,1,2,4,5,11–13 whereas technical placement failure occurred in up to 10% of cases in the surgical series.6–8 On the other hand, the difference between the complications of right and left side attempts was not observed in our study.