Skip to main content
Log in

Transcutaneously Tunneled Central Venous Lines in Cancer Patients: An Analysis of Device-Related Morbidity Factors Based on Prospective Data Collection

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstaract

Background: Long-term transcutaneous tunneled central venous catheters are frequently placed in cancer patients, accounting for significant costs and morbidity. Factors influencing outcome, though, are poorly studied.

Methods: Between June 1991 and June 1993, 923 central venous tunneled catheters were placed in 791 patients at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. Placement-, device-, and patient-related parameters were charted prospectively (median follow-up: 120 days) and correlated to device-specific outcome events.

Results: Median patient age was 28.5 years (range: 0.025 - 84.5). Disease distribution included hematologic malignancies (64.7%), solid tumors (30.4%), and others (4.9%). Primary indications for line access included chemotherapy (72.8%), bone marrow transplantation (18.7%), total parenteral nutrition (6.4%), and drug administration (2.1%). There were 11 insertion complications (1.2%), including insertion failure (n 5 6), hemorrhage (n 5 4), and malposition (n 5 1). Subsequent to placement, a proven or suspected device-specific complication occurred in 540 lines (58.5%). Per 10,000 catheter days, there were 17.6 infection episodes, 8.1 thrombotic complications, 6.9 instances of catheter breakage, 3.5 accidental or inadvertent cases of displacement, and 0.6 device leaks. Reasons for line removal or other termination of follow-up were patient’s death (32.1%), treatment end (28%), infection (19.6%), suspected infection (6.3%), displacement (6.8%), thrombosis (3.1%), leak (1%), and others (3.1%). Median device-specific duration was 365 days, compared with a median complication-free device-specific duration of 167 days (P,0.0001), reflecting a highly significant device salvage rate after complications. Catheter tip position emerged as the dominant independent prognostic factor for reduced device-specific duration or complication-free device-specific duration.

Conclusions: Transcutaneous tunneled central venous lines can be placed safely, with a considerable incidence of subsequent device-specific complications, but a high salvage rate. Factors determining outcome are related to device placement, as well as the patient’s disease status. In this study, patients alive 90 days after catheter placement had a 37% chance for a device complication, with a 20% chance for device loss. Future analyses of intermediate-term intravenous access should employ the measurement of device-specific outcome as a reference parameter to assess clinical results.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Groeger JS, Lucas AB, Thaler HT, et al. Infectious morbidity associated with long-term use of venous access devices in patients with cancer [see comments]. Ann Intern Med 1993;119:1168–1174.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. LaQuaglia MP, Lucas A, Thaler HT, et al. A prospective analysis of vascular access device-related infections in children. J Ped Surg 1992;27:840–842.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Kaplan EL, Meier P. Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. Am Stat Assoc J 1958;53:457–481.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Schwarz RE, Groeger JS, Coit DG. Subcutaneously implanted central venous access devices in Cancer patients: a prospective analysis. Cancer 1997;79:1635–1640.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Peto R, Pike MC. Conservatism in the approximation E(0-E)2/E in the log rank test for survival data or tumor incidence data. Biometrics 1973;29:579–584.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Cox DR. Regression models and life tables. J R Stat Assoc 1972; 29:187–220.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Rotstein C, Brock L, Roberts RS. The incidence of first Hickman catheter-related infection and predictors of catheter removal in cancer patients. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1995;16:451–458.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Mansfield PF, Hohn DC, Fornage BD, et al. Complications and failures of subclavian-vein catheterization [see comments]. N Engl J Med 1994;331:1735–1738.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Barrera R, Mina B, Huang Y, Groeger JS. Acute complications of central line placement in profoundly thrombocytopenic Cancer patients. Cancer 1996;78:2025–2030.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Tenney JH, Moody MR, Newman KA, et al. Adherent microorganisms on lumenal surfaces of long-term intravenous catheters. Importance of Staphylococcus epidermidis in patients with cancer. Arch Intern Med 1986;146:1949–1954.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Engelhard D, Elishoov H, Strauss N, et al. Nosocomial coagulasenegative staphylococcal infections in bone marrow transplantation recipients with central vein catheter. A 5-year prospective study, Transplantation 1996;61:430–4.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Timsit JF, Sebille V, Farkas JC, et al. Effect of subcutaneous tunneling on internal jugular catheter-related sepsis in critically ill patients: a prospective randomized multicenter study. JAMA 1996; 276:1416–1420.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Segura M, Alvarez-Lerma F, Tellado JM, et al. A clinical trial on the prevention of catheter-related sepsis using a new hub model. Ann Surg 1996;223:363–369.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Vassilomanolakis M, Plataniotis G, Koumakis G, et al. Central venous catheter-related infections after bone marrow ransplantation in patients with malignancies: a prospective study with shortcourse vancomycin prophylaxis. Bone Marrow Transplant 1995; 15:77–80.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Groeger JS, Lucas AB, Coit D, et al. A prospective, randomized evaluation of the effect of silver impregnated subcutaneous cuffs for preventing tunneled chronic venous access catheter infections in cancer patients [see comments]. Ann Surg 1993;218:206–210.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Ciresi DL, Albrecht RM, Volkers PA, Scholten DJ. Failure of antiseptic bonding to prevent central venous catheter-related infection and sepsis. Am Surg 1996;62:641–646.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Tennenberg S, Lieser M, McCurdy B, et al. A prospective randomized trial of an antibiotic- and antiseptic-coated central venous catheter in the prevention of catheter-related infections. Arch Surg 1997;132:1348–1351.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Horne MR, May DJ, Alexander HR, et al. Venographic surveillance of tunneled venous access devices in adult oncology patients. Ann Surg Oncol 1995;2:174–178.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Koksoy C, Kuzu A, Erden I, Akkaya A. The risk factors in central venous catheter-related thrombosis. Aust N Z J Surg 1995;65:796–798.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Bern MM, Lokich JJ, Wallach SR, et al. Very low doses of warfarin can prevent thrombosis in central venous catheters. A randomized prospective trial. Ann Intern Med 1990;112:423–428.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Lafreniere, R. Indwelling subclavian catheters and a visit with the “pinched-off sign.” J Surg Oncol 1991;47:261–264.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Klotz HP, Schopke W, Kohler A, et al. Catheter fracture: a rare complication of totally implantable subclavian venous access devices. J Surg Oncol 1996;62:222–225.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Muhm M, Sunder-Plassmann G, Apsner R, et al. Malposition of central venous catheters. Incidence, management and preventive practices. Wien Klin Wochenschr 1997;109:400–405.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Brown PW, McBride KD, Gaines PA. Technical report: Hickman catheter rescue. Clin Radiol 1994;49:891–894.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Williard W, Coit D, Lucas A, Groeger JS. Long-term vascular access via the vena cava. J Surg Oncol 1991;46:162–166.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Goldstein AM, Weber JM, Sheridan RL. Femoral venous access is safe in burned children: an analysis of 224 catheters. J Pediatr 1997;130:442–446.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Salem RR, Ward BA, Ravikumar TS. A new peripherally implanted subcutaneous permanent central venous access device for patients requiring chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 1993;11:2181–2185.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Pullyblank AM, Carey PD, Pearce SZ, et al. Comparison between peripherally implanted ports and externally sited catheters for long-term venous access [see comments]. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1994;76:33–38.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Ng PK, Ault MJ, Ellrodt AG, Maldonado L. Peripherally inserted central catheters in general medicine. Mayo Clin Proc 1997;72:225–233.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Raad I, Davis S, Becker M, et al. Low infection rate and long durability of nontunneled silastic catheters. A safe and cost-effective alternative for long-term venous access [see comments]. Arch Intern Med 1993;153:1791–1796.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Holloway RW, Orr JW. An evaluation of Groshong central venous catheters on a gynecologic oncology service. Gynecol Oncol 1995; 56:211–217.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Warner BW, Haygood MM, Davies SL, Hennies GA. A randomized, prospective trial of standard Hickman compared with Groshong central venous catheters in pediatric oncology patients. J Am Coll Surg 1996;183:140–144.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Tobiansky R, Lui K, Dalton DM, et al. Complications of central venous access devices in children with and without cancer. J Paediatr Child Health 1997;33:509–514.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roderich E. Schwarz MD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schwarz, R.E., Coit, D.G. & Groeger, J.S. Transcutaneously Tunneled Central Venous Lines in Cancer Patients: An Analysis of Device-Related Morbidity Factors Based on Prospective Data Collection. Ann Surg Oncol 7, 441–449 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10434-000-0441-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10434-000-0441-y

Key Words

Navigation