植入式静脉输液港导管断裂预防与处理

目的 探讨植入式静脉输液港(IVAP)导管断裂及其预防处理.方法 回顾性分析2012年1月至12月单中心878例IVAP植入患者中发生导管断裂7例患者临床资料,结合相关文献对导管断裂原因和预防措施进行讨论.结果 截至2016年11月31日,经颈内静脉植入IVAP术后导管断裂发生率为0.8％(7/878);断裂时间为术后855～1 412 d,平均1 133 d;断裂部位为导管进入颈内静脉交界处、导管与底座接头处和皮下隧道部位.结论 导管断裂是IVAP植入后长期使用过程中严重并发症之一.规范手术操作流程、加强维护和护理宣教、适时取出等措施,有助于降低IVAP导管断裂发生率,保障患者生命安全.     

婴幼儿超声辅助下颈内静脉穿刺植入完全植入式静脉输液港评价

目的 探讨超声辅助下颈内静脉穿刺在婴幼儿完全植入式静脉输液港(TIVAP)植入术中的效果.方法 回顾性分析2009年1月至2016年7月在上海交通大学医学院附属儿童医学中心(单中心)治疗的446例TIVAP植入术患儿临床资料,患儿平均年龄1.3岁(4个月～2.8岁).比较传统颈内静脉盲穿刺和超声辅助下颈内静脉穿刺耗时、一次穿刺成功率、穿刺并发症发生率,并作统计学分析.结果 446例患儿中颈内静脉盲穿刺265例,平均需时7.6 min,一次穿刺成功201例(75.85％),发生穿刺并发症15例(5.66％);超声辅助下颈内静脉穿刺181例,平均需时4.2 min,一次穿刺成功176例(97.24％),发生穿刺并发症3例(1.70％).结论 婴幼儿TIVAP植入术时采用超声辅助下颈内静脉穿刺,可缩短手术时间,提高一次穿刺成功率并减少穿刺并发症发生,是一种安全有效、简单可行的技术,值得临床推广.     

静脉造影在完全植入式静脉输液港植入术中导引和并发症诊断、预测中的作用

【摘要】 目的 探讨静脉造影在经腋静脉完全植入式静脉输液港（TIVAP）植入术中导引和术后并发症诊断、预测中的作用。方法 收集2018年1月至2020年12月在上海市公共卫生临床中心就诊并经腋静脉近侧段植入TIVAP的342例患者临床资料。分析静脉造影导引穿刺成功率、置港成功率、术后并发症、静脉造影在并发症诊断和预测中的作用。 结果 静脉造影导引下腋静脉穿刺成功率97.4%（76/78）,所有患者TIVAP植入均获成功。误穿动脉3例,气胸1例。术前应用静脉造影预测夹闭综合征2例。术后应用静脉造影诊断导管阻塞3例,纤维蛋白鞘2例。随访确诊5例症状性静脉血栓,36例无症状性静脉血栓,发生率12%（41/342）。单因素分析显示,年龄、左心室射血分数（LVEF）、血栓弹力图（TEG）、腋静脉显影延迟、同侧经外周穿刺中心静脉导管（PICC）植入史与静脉血栓发生相关;多因素回归分析显示,年龄、LVEF、腋静脉显影延迟、同侧PICC植入史是静脉血栓独立预测因素。结论 静脉造影导引下经腋静脉近侧段植入TIVAP安全可行,静脉造影在并发症诊断和预测中起重要作用。     

完全植入式静脉输液港术后港体翻转临床分析

目的探讨完全植入式静脉输液港(TIVAP)术后港体翻转的发生原因、确诊方法、处理措施及预防策略。方法回顾性分析2015年12月至2018年10月428例接受TIVAP植入术患者临床资料。记录术后港体翻转率、发生时间、原因分析和处理措施。结果428例患者术中港体均未缝合固定,术后6例发生港体翻转,均经影像学检查证实,港体翻转率为1.4%(6/428)。其中男2例,女4例;年龄55~71岁,平均(65.0±6.3)岁。术后23~451 d出现港体翻转,2例考虑与皮下组织过剩/疏松相关,1例考虑为囊袋尺寸过大,其余3例原因不明。处理措施:单纯手法复位3例,囊袋内注射0.9%氯化钠溶液后手法复位1例,囊袋内注射0.9%氯化钠溶液手法复位失败后切开复位1例,直接切开复位1例。结论TIVAP植入术后港体翻转发生率低,易于确诊和复位,因此没有必要常规缝合固定港体。建议选择宽基底、凸缘设计港体。港体翻转原因尚需进一步研究探讨。     

完全植入式静脉输液港3种植入途径临床对比

【摘要】 目的 评价完全植入式静脉输液港（TIVAP）3种植入途径的临床效果。 方法 回顾性分析2018年1月至2019年12月在北京世纪坛医院接受TIVAP植入术患者320例。根据植入方式不同分为经颈内静脉穿刺组（A组,n=205）、经锁骨下静脉穿刺组（B组,n=60）、经头静脉切开植入组（C组,n=55）。比较3组患者一般资料、早期并发症、晚期并发症及患者满意度情况。 结果 3组患者均未出现血胸、空气栓塞等严重并发症。A组置管长度（33.8±5.1） cm,为3组中最长（P＜0.05）;B组患者气胸（6.7%）、损伤动脉（5.0%）、局部血肿（8.3%）发生率均为3组中最高（P＜0.05）;C组手术时间为（39.8±10.6） min,高于其他两组（P＜0.05）。A、B、C组置管失败率分别为0、3.3%、3.6%（P＜0.05）。3组患者伤口感染、堵管、血栓形成发生率差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。A、B组导管成角折叠或卡压、体位性堵管发生率明显高于C组（P＜0.05）。术后随访3～6个月,3组患者疼痛视觉模拟评分（VAS）、影响穿衣、影响睡眠、上肢活动不适感及总体满意度差异均无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。 结论 3种TIVAP植入方法均安全有效。穿刺植入途径普及率高,简单易学,结合超声导引成功率高;头静脉切开植入途径严重并发症发生率最低,但置管失败率较穿刺途径高。     

植入式静脉输液港体内导管断裂介入捕捞的临床应用价值

目的探讨DSA下捕捞体内断裂静脉港导管技术要点、安全性及临床应用价值。方法静脉港体内导管断裂11例,采用DSA下经右侧股静脉介入法,使用不同规格的抓捕器及导管配合捕捞断裂导管。结果 11例静脉港体内断裂导管均成功经右侧股静脉取出,手术成功率100%。DSA下断裂导管取出耗时18~110 min,平均53.45 min,介入术中、术后未出现介入操作相关并发症。结论 DSA下经右侧经股静脉能及时捕捞断裂导管,快速解除断裂导管可能引发的严重并发症,创伤小,安全性高,避免了手术取出的创伤。     

右侧头臂静脉入路植入静脉输液港临床应用

目的 探讨右侧头臂静脉入路行完全植入式静脉输液港(TIVAP)植入的可行性及安全性.方法 回顾性分析2013年3月至2015年12月采用BCV入路植入TIVAP共493例患者临床资料,其中男137例,女356例;年龄29～78岁,平均(47.3±13.2)岁.总结穿刺成功率及留置过程相关并发症.结果 手术成功率为100％,首次穿刺成功率为99％ (488/493).手术时间18～35 min,平均(22.5±8.3) min.术中误穿动脉3例(0.61％,3/493),未见血胸、气胸等严重并发症.术后患者携TIVAP时间为124～986 d,平均(271.1±53.8)d;并发症发生率为2.25％(11/488),包括港穴出血2例,导管相关感染1例,部分血栓形成2例,纤维蛋白鞘形成6例,未见导管异位、断裂、置管相关夹闭综合征(POS)等严重并发症.结论 经右侧BCV入路行TIVAP植入,穿刺成功率高,安全可靠,可为临床植入TIVAP提供另一入路选择.     

完全植入式输液港全程健康宣教的研究

健康教育能帮助人们形成正确的观念和行为,促进身心健康。完全植入式输液港是一种新型的输液装置,适用于长期及反复间断需要输液的患者,可解决该类患者频繁更换输液管道的痛苦,是肿瘤患者静脉输液、化疗的永久性通道[1],与目     

植入式静脉输液港与PICC导管在恶性肿瘤患者化疗中的效果比较

目的比较植入式静脉输液港(VAP)与经外周静脉穿刺中心静脉置管(PICC)导管在恶性肿瘤化疗患者中的效果。方法 287例恶性肿瘤患者根据治疗意愿分为两组,PICC组(n=140例)经PICC化疗治疗,VAP组(n=147例)经VAP化疗治疗,比较两组患者不同时间导管留置率、意外拔管率、留置时间、生活质量及导管并发症发生情况。结果 VAP组患者置管后第6、12个月导管置管率及留置时间、生活质量评分均明显高于PICC组(P<0.05),而意外拔管率明显低于PICC组(P<0.05);VAP组患者导管堵塞、导管相关性血流感染等并发症发生率均明显低于PICC组(P<0.05)。结论 VAP具有并发症发生率低、留置时间长、对恶性肿瘤患者生活质量影响小等优点,可作为化疗理想的深静脉通道。     

Diagnosis and treatment of central venous access-associated infections

This paper provides readers with a basic understanding of the types of central venous access-associated infections as well as appropriate diagnostic techniques. Preventive measures are the most effective way to reduce rates of catheter-associated infection and are discussed in detail. Diagnosis and treatment of each type of infection are reviewed for nontunneled central venous catheters, tunneled dialysis catheters, and venous access ports. Readers should be able to employ the methods described in this paper to reduce the rate of central venous access-associated infections at their hospitals.     

超声导引下上臂完全植入式输液港植入临床应用

目的 探讨超声导引下上臂完全植入式输液港(TIAP)植入的安全性、技术可行性及相关并发症.方法 选择2014年2月至2016年12月接受上臂植入TIAP患者642例,其中男407例(63.4％),女235例(36.6％),年龄11～89(58.29±4.33)岁.采用超声导引下Seldinger置管技术,于上臂植入TIAP.结果 642例患者均植入上臂TIAP,首次植入成功率99.53％ (639/642),3例首次穿刺失败,第2次植入成功.随访155 302个导管日,共发生并发症58例(9.0％),其中近期并发症9例,远期并发症49例;TIAP相关感染28例(4.4％),导管静脉血栓7例(1.1％),囊袋出血3例(0.4％),TIAP体翻转3例(0.4％),皮肤裂开1例(0.2％),导管堵塞2例(0.3％),导管继发移位4例(0.6％),导管相关上肢运动受限7例(1.1％),上肢静脉回流障碍2例(0.3％),正中神经损伤1例(0.2％),无相关死亡事件发生.结论 超声导引下经皮穿刺上臂植入TIAP技术安全有效,创伤小,并发症发生率低,值得临床推广应用.     

Principles of non-tunneled central venous access

Non-tunneled central venous access has become an important tool in the management of the sick patient, particularly in the intensive care unit. Image guidance allows more precise placement of lines with overall lower complication rates compared with guidance by physical landmarks. The use of image guidance has brought a procedure traditionally performed by surgeons into the realm of the interventional radiologist. Techniques for placement of non-tunneled central venous catheters, hemodialysis catheters, and peripherally inserted central catheter lines will be discussed.     

Flow confirmation study for central venous port in oncologic outpatient undergoing chemotherapy: Evaluation of suspected system-related mechanical complications

Purpose

To evaluate the efficacy and outcome of a flow confirmation study (FCS) in oncologic outpatients undergoing chemotherapy suspected of a central venous port (CVP) system-related mechanical complication.

Materials and methods

A total of 66 patients (27 men, 39 women; mean age, 60 years) received FCS for the following reasons: prolonged infusion time during chemotherapy (n = 32), inability to inject saline fluid (n = 15), lateral neck and/or back pain (n = 6), subcutaneous extravasation of anticancer drug (n = 5), arm swelling (n = 4), and inability to puncture the port (n = 4). FCS consisted of examining the position of CVP, potential secondary shifts or fractures, and integrity of the system using contrast material through the port.

Results

Of the 66 patients, 43 had an abnormal finding uncovered by FCS. The most frequent abnormal findings was catheter kinking (n = 22). Explantation and reimplantation of the CVP system was required in 21 of the 66 patients. Remaining 45 patients were able continue using the CVP system after the FCS without any system malfunction.

Conclusion

FCS was effective for evaluating CVP system-related mechanical complications and was useful for deciding whether CVP system explantation and reimplantation was required.     

Peripheral venous access ports: Outcomes analysis in 109 patients

Purpose: To perform a retrospective outcomes analysis of central venous catheters with peripheral venous access ports, with comparison to published data. Methods: One hundred and twelve central venous catheters with peripherally placed access ports were placed under sonographic guidance in 109 patients over a 4-year period. Ports were placed for the administration of chemotherapy, hyperalimentation, long-term antibiotic therapy, gamma-globulin therapy, and frequent blood sampling. A vein in the upper arm was accessed in each case and the catheter was passed to the superior vena cava or right atrium. Povidone iodine skin preparation was used in the first 65 port insertions. A combination of Iodophor solution and povidone iodine solution was used in the last 47 port insertions. Forty patients received low-dose (1 mg) warfarin sodium beginning the day after port insertion. Three patients received higher doses of warfarin sodium for preexistent venous thrombosis. Catheter performance and complications were assessed and compared with published data. Results: Access into the basilic or brachial veins was obtained in all cases. Ports remained functional for a total of 28,936 patient days. The port functioned in 50% of patients until completion of therapy, or the patient's expiration. Ports were removed prior to completion of therapy in 18% of patients. Eleven patients (9.9% of ports placed) suffered an infectious complication (0.38 per thousand catheter-days)—in nine, at the port implantation site, in two along the catheter. In all 11 instances the port was removed. Port pocket infection in the early postoperative period occurred in three patients (4.7%) receiving a Betadine prep vs two patients (4.2%) receiving a standard O.R. prep. This difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.9). Venous thrombosis occurred in three patients (6.8%) receiving warfarin sodium and in two patients (3%) not receiving warfarin sodium. This difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.6). Aspiration occlusion occurred in 13 patients (11.7%). Intracatheter urokinase was infused in eight of these patients and successfully restored catheter function in all but two instances. These complication rates are comparable to or better than those reported with chest ports. Conclusion: Peripheral ports for long-term central venous access placed by interventional radiologists in the interventional radiology suite are as safe and as effective as chest ports.     

A concise history of central venous access

Central venous access has become a mainstay of modern interventional radiology practice. Its history has paralleled and enabled many current medical therapies. This short overview provides an interesting historical perspective of these increasingly common interventional procedures.