植入式静脉输液港方位的选择在乳腺癌患者应用中的临床研究

目的通过比较经皮颈内静脉植入式静脉输液港的置入方位,探讨操作过程中的简便性与安全性,为选择合适的植入方位提供依据。方法收集2017-03—2018-04间在郑州大学第二附属医院行经皮颈内静脉植入输液港的135例乳腺癌术后患者。以右侧颈内静脉植入输液港的90例为观察组,以左侧颈内静脉植入输液港45例为对照组。比较置管时间、置管成功率、导管走形不良率。结果 2组术后均未见明显不适,1次置管成功率差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。观察组置管时间、术后导管走形异常发生率均优于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论植入式静脉输液港装置选择右侧颈内静脉穿刺和左侧颈内静脉穿刺均可行。右侧植入更加简便安全,可优先选用。     

乳腺癌经上臂植入中心静脉输液港25例临床研究

目的 探讨经上臂植入中心静脉输液港的临床适应证及技术操作细则。方法 回顾性分析北京大学第一医院乳腺疾病中心经上臂植入中心静脉输液港的25例乳腺癌病人临床资料,对照同期经颈内静脉植入中心静脉输液港的72例病例,分析经上臂植入中心静脉输液港的临床适应证及技术操作细则。结果 共完成中心静脉输液港植入97例,其中经上臂植入中心静脉输液港25例,经颈内静脉植入中心静脉输液港72例。无失败病例,两组病人手术时间差异无统计学意义［35~55（42.8±4.8）min vs. 35~50（42.4±4.6）min,t=0.342,P=0.733］,短期并发症发生率差异无统计学意义（4.0% vs. 4.1%,P=1.000）。结论 在严格选择适应证人群,注意操作技术细则基础上,经上臂植入中心静脉输液港是一种安全的中心静脉输液港植入方法。     

可视化超声用于输液港植入全流程医护一体化管理

目的 观察可视化超声用于输液港植入前、中、后全流程医护一体化管理的价值。方法 选取133例于化学治疗前接受输液港植入的恶性肿瘤患者,其中106例经颈内静脉、27例经腋静脉植入;并观察植入前、中、后的临床及超声资料,分析超声对其全流程医护一体化管理的价值。结果 133例患者中,术前超声发现一侧颈内静脉狭窄4例,一侧颈内静脉先天走行变异2例,一侧颈内静脉血栓2例。133例均成功一次性穿刺植入输液港。术后发现27例经腋静脉植入输液港中,导管异位于右侧颈内静脉1例;106例经颈内静脉植入输液港中,导管附壁血栓13例,导管折断并异位3例,注射座周围皮下软组织感染2例,注射座翻转1例;以相应措施干预后,患者一般情况均良好。结论 可视化超声可于植入输液港前评估拟穿刺血管、于植入中实时引导穿刺、于植入后密切监控,实现输液港植入全流程医护一体化管理。     

植入式静脉输液港两种不同植入方式对比研究（附2897例分析）

目的 探讨锁骨下静脉与颈内静脉两种不同穿刺方式植入式静脉输液港的对比研究。方法 回顾性分析2008年12月至2014年3月河北医科大学第四医院2897例成人植入式静脉输液港锁骨下静脉与颈内静脉穿刺植入的操作方法,并比较两种植入术式的相关并发症。结果 2897例中经颈内静脉穿刺共2718例（93.82%）,其中经左颈内静脉穿刺1222例,经右颈内静脉穿刺1496例;经锁骨下静脉穿刺179例（6.18%）,其中经左锁骨下静脉穿刺77例,经右锁骨下静脉穿刺102例。颈内静脉穿刺成功率（98.68%）明显高于锁骨下静脉穿刺成功率（88.83%）（χ2=80.814,P=0.000）。发生植入时并发症25例（0.86%,25/2897）,锁骨下静脉穿刺气胸发生率（4.47%,8/179）明显高于颈内静脉穿刺气胸发生率（0.04%,1/2718）（χ2=106.54,P=0.000）。左右侧锁骨下静脉穿刺气胸发生率差异无统计学意义（7.79% vs. 1.96%,P=0.077）。左右侧锁骨下静脉穿刺血胸发生率差异无统计学意义（0.08% vs. 0.07%,P=0.697）。全组无死亡病例发生。结论 植入式静脉输液港是临床需要长期静脉输液的常用技术。颈内静脉穿刺植入为一项安全、有效、并发症发生率相对较低的技术。     

X线引导下放置植入式输液港在乳腺癌化疗中的应用

目的探讨乳腺癌化疗采用完全植入式输液港作为静脉输液通路的可行性。方法2006年2月一2009年12月,共65例需行化疗的乳腺癌患者在术中X线引导下行输液港装置植入术。局部麻醉下行锁骨下静脉或颈内静脉穿刺术,术中X线引导确认导管向上腔静脉方向走行及导管尖端位置位于上腔静脉根部水平。观察围手术期和输液港植人术后的长期并发症。结果全部病例均在术中X线引导下完成输液港植入。发生气胸3例,1例需要行胸腔闭式引流。2例切口愈合不良,其中1例取出输液港后愈合,1例将输液港移位后愈合。中位随访22个月（4～35个月）,应用输液港装置化疗中输液顺畅,无渗漏,未发生导管相关性感染、导管阻塞和夹闭综合征。结论X线引导下输液港植入是乳腺癌化疗有效和安全的输液途径。主要并发症包括穿刺相关并发症如气胸,远期并发症如导管阻塞、导管相关性感染。     

经颈外静脉放置全植入式输液港在肿瘤化疗中的应用

目的探讨经颈外静脉放置全植入式输液港(totally implantable venous access ports,TIVAP)作为肿瘤化疗静脉输液通路的可行性及术后并发症。方法对2010年1月~2013年12月96例行输液港植入术的肿瘤化疗患者进行回顾性研究,观察围手术期和远期并发症。结果全部病例均在术中完成输液港植入。经颈外静脉置管成功率95.8%(92/96);2例因术前曾行放疗静脉挛缩,2例血管过细无法植入导管,改行同侧颈内静脉穿刺置管。术后中位随访26个月(8~46个月),并发症发生率6.2%(6/96)。其中2例因肿瘤复发压迫造成输液港导管闭塞,1例导管移位,2例血栓形成,l例锁骨区皮肤疼痛。应用输液港装置化疗中输液顺畅,无渗漏,未发生气胸、血胸、导管相关性感染和夹闭综合征。结论经颈外静脉切开放置全植入式输液港是肿瘤化疗安全、快捷和有效的输液途径,可以避免气胸、血胸、夹闭综合征等严重并发症,主要并发症包括导管移位、阻塞、血栓形成。     

超声引导调整植入式静脉输液港导管异位1例

正患者女,53岁,左侧乳腺癌改良根治术后10天,接受局部麻醉下右侧胸壁静脉输液港植入术,术后胸部X线片示导管走行纡曲,尖端位于右胸上外侧缘,诊断为输液港导管异位,于超声引导下调整输液港异位导管。术前于胸部X线片上进行标记,预估需退出导管长度约9.00cm(图1A、1B)。术中先以超声确认导管在右锁骨下静脉及右腋静脉内,之后暴露颈部手术原切口,于超声监视下将导管退出右腋静脉及右锁骨下静脉至预定长度,使导管处于颈     

经颈内静脉完全植入式输液港在乳腺癌化疗中的应用

目的总结经颈内静脉放置全植入式输液港(TIVAP)作为乳腺癌化疗静脉输液通路的使用经验。方法对2013年6月~2015年12月486例行输液港植入术的乳腺癌化疗患者进行回顾性研究,观察其术后及远期并发症。结果全部病例均在术中成功完成输液港植入。l例出现心悸不适,2例穿刺点周围局部血肿,1例囊袋内港体周围血肿,2例气胸,3例导管相关性感染,2例导管堵塞,1例导管断裂。至末次随访,65例带管时间4~30个月,中位带管时间15个月。本组未出现导丝断裂、pinch-off综合征等严重并发症。结论经颈内静脉放置全植入式输液港是乳腺癌化疗安全、有效的输液途径。     

颈内静脉入路与锁骨下静脉入路行输液港置入术的对比分析

目的 分析颈内静脉入路与锁骨下静脉入路行输液港的效果。方法 2019年1月～2021年12月期间行输液港置入术的病人104例,包括颈内静脉入路55例(A组)、锁骨下静脉入路49例(B组),比较两组不同入路病例在手术时间、穿刺时间、导管长度、术中、术后并发症等差异。结果 A组、B组穿刺时间分别为(8.84±3.10)分钟和(11.22±3.86)分钟,出血量分别为(12.64±5.63)ml和(15.71±7.07)ml,导管移位发生率分别为0和8.16%,两组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。两组气胸等术中并发症发生率和术后并发症发生率等比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论 颈内静脉穿刺耗时较短,成功率较高,导管移位等并发症发生率较低,较为安全、适用,应首选右侧颈内静脉。     

超声引导下经颈内静脉植入静脉输液泵1856例体会

【摘要】〓目的〓探讨超声引导下颈内静脉植入式静脉输液泵植入手术方法。方法〓回顾性分析中山大学孙逸仙纪念医院乳腺肿瘤医学部从2011年1月至2014年3月期间1856例超声引导下颈内静脉输液港植入手术的资料。结果〓1856例患者超声引导下经颈内静脉植入成功率100%。其中经右侧颈内静脉植入1838例(占99.03%),经左侧颈内静脉植入18例(占0.97%)。发生置管术中并发症6例(0.3%);发生术后使用输液港过程中并发症25例(1.3%),无死亡病例。结论〓植入式输液泵在超声引导下行颈内静脉植入成功率很高,并发症发生率比较低,且多不是严重并发症。     

Embolization of a fractured central venous catheter placed using the internal jugular approach

INTRODUCTIONFracture and embolization of central venous catheters placed via the subclavian approach is well recognized, but fractured catheters placed via the internal jugular vein are extremely rare.PRESENTATION OF CASEA 65-year-old man presented with a catheter embolus after placement of a central venous port using the internal jugular approach undertaken to administer adjuvant chemotherapy for colon cancer with lung metastases. Goose neck and conformational loop snares were successfully used to percutaneously retrieve the severed catheter, which had migrated to the right ventricle.DISCUSSIONCatheter fracture may occur even after placement via the internal jugular approach and may be underestimated because it is often asymptomatic. Interventional radiology techniques using goose-neck and conformational loop snares may be useful to retract an intravascular foreign body.CONCLUSIONImaging studies such as a chest X-ray are mandatory to check that the catheter tip is in the appropriate position during the entire follow-up period even if it was placed through the internal jugular vein.     

Is a routine chest x-ray necessary for children after fluoroscopically assisted central venous access?

Purpose: The aim of this study was to determine in a pediatric population whether a routine chest x-ray after central venous access is necessary when the central venous catheter is placed with intraoperative fluoroscopy.Methods: This was a retrospective review of the charts of all patients at Children’s Hospital in Denver, Colorado who underwent subclavian or internal jugular central venous catheter placement from January 1, 1998 through December 31, 2001. Age, sex, primary reason for access, access site, number of venipuncture attempts, type of catheter, intraoperative fluoroscopy results, chest x-ray results, location of the tip of the catheter, and complications were analyzed.Results: There were 1,039 central venous catheters placed in 824 patients, 92.6% in the subclavian vein and 7.4% in the internal jugular vein. There were 604 (58.1%) children who had both fluoroscopy and a postprocedure chest x-ray, there were 308 (29.6%) who had only fluoroscopy, there were 117 (11.3%) who had only a postprocedure chest x-ray, and there were 10 (1.0%) who had neither fluoroscopy nor chest x-ray. On completion of the procedure, there were 12 (1.1%) children with misplaced central venous catheters, only 1 (0.1%) when intraoperative fluoroscopy was used. There were 17 (1.6%) complications; 9 (0.9%) were pulmonary (pneumothorax, hemothorax, or an effusion). All children with pulmonary complications experienced clinical signs and symptoms suggestive of the complication after their central venous catheter insertion but before their postprocedure chest x-ray.Conclusions: The number of complications encountered in children who had central venous access of the subclavian vein or internal jugular central vein with intraoperative fluoroscopy was infrequent, the number of misplaced catheters was minimized with intraoperative fluoroscopy, and all children with pulmonary complications showed clinical signs suggestive of pulmonary complications before postoperative chest x-ray. Therefore, children who have had central venous access of the subclavian and internal jugular vein with intraoperative fluoroscopy do not appear to require a routine chest x-ray after catheter placement unless clinical suspicion of a complication exists.     

380例次长期深静脉留置导管临床应用的生存分析

目的提高对长期静脉留职导管的置管、使用、护理的认识，延长其使用寿命。方法随访本院血液净化中心患者380例次深静脉置管并长期留置的情况和并发症，记录导管使用终点。应用Kaplan-Meier法绘制导管使用寿命的生存曲线，计算中位生存时间。log-rank检验比较导管使用寿命的差异。分析评价置管方法、感染发生率、导管退出原因及透析充分性。结果导管静脉入路途径包括颈内、颈外、锁骨下及股静脉。3种静脉入路中位生存时间分别为颈内（31．0±2．8）月，颈外（30．0±4．0）月，锁骨下（19．0±2．9）月。log-rank生存曲线检验结果显示，颈内与锁骨下进路比较差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。导管使用终点113例次，其中患者死亡60例（53．1％），感染14例（12．4％），导管功能不良13例（11．5％），肾移植13例（11．5％），内瘘2例（1．8％），导管意外拉脱7例（6．2％），导管破损4例（3．5％）。导管内感染61例次，隧道感染2例次。结论长期留置导管首选颈内静脉入路，其次为颈外静脉入路。导管终点以患者死亡、感染及导管功能不良占绝大多数。     

Central venous catheter failure is induced by injury and can be prevented by stabilizing the catheter tip

Purpose: Thrombosis associated with central venous catheters is a significant cause of device failure, morbidity, and loss of access sites. We hypothesized that central vein thrombosis is caused by catheter injury to the vein wall and that it can be reduced by stabilizing the catheter tip. To test these hypotheses, we studied central vein catheters in a porcine model. Test catheters had a silicone-encased stainless steel loop at the indwelling end that contacted the vein wall and stabilized the catheter tip in the center of the vessel. Methods: Sealed silicon elastic (Silastic) catheters (3.2 mm outer diameter) with and without a stabilizing loop were inserted via the external jugular vein into the superior vena cava just above the right atrium. Animals were killed at 1, 2, 4, and 8 weeks, and the vena cava was inspected for the presence of thrombus and entrapment of the catheter tip. Results: In control animals mural thrombus developed at the site of the catheter tip. This thrombus organized by invasion of macrophages and smooth muscle cells, eventually forming a lesion similar to intimal hyperplasia. Lesion cross-sectional area was significantly smaller in animals with loop catheters than in control animals at 2 weeks (1.2 ± 1.3 vs 34.5 ± 23.9 mm2; p = 0.05) and 4 weeks (2.8 ± 0.3 vs 13.9 ± 5.8 mm2; p < 0.05). By 8 weeks the vena cava was nearly occluded in most animals and the catheter tip was entrapped in this lesion in all cases. Test catheters eliminated the injury process for up to 8 weeks (p < 0.01, χ2 control vs loop catheter entrapment). Very little injury response was found where the loop contacted the vein wall, and the catheter tip was free of thrombus in all cases. Conclusions: Mural thrombosis at the tip of indwelling central catheters is caused by chronic mechanical venous wall injury. Vessel injury and the resulting thrombosis can be prevented by a catheter modification that stabilizes the tip. Such a catheter may significantly reduce catheter malfunction and morbidity associated with these devices. (J Vasc Surg 1998;28:59-66.)     

Inadvertent extradural insertion of an internal jugular catheter in an infant

We present an unusual complication of left internal jugular vein catheterization in an 11-week-old infant which we believe has not been described previously. After failed subclavian catheterization, a left internal jugular catheter was placed without apparent difficulty. Confirmatory chest x-ray revealed that the tip of the catheter was in the extradural space.      

1500例临时静脉留置导管透析的临床分析

目的探讨临时静脉内留置导管透析的血管选择、透析效果、并发症、影响因素及处理。方法静脉置管后观察导管血流量、留置时间、尿素清除指数（Kt／V）、再循环、血液流变学指标、并发症及其影响因素。结果颈内静脉、锁骨下静脉、股静脉是留置导管静脉常选静脉。1500例静脉留置导管总体使用良好，透析充分，Kt／V平均1．20±0．35；导管再循环率低为（10．5±2．5）％；留置导管常见的并发症依次为血流量不足、栓塞、感染、导管脱落等。大多数能通过调整导管位置、导管内溶栓及抗感染等处理改善；5例反复发生栓塞者血纤维蛋白原显著升高；导管尖端位于右心房者与上腔静脉者比较，前者具有更好的血流量、再循环率低[（285±50．5）ml／minVS（205±45．5）ml／mim（8±3．5）％VS（12±4．5）％，（P〈0．05）]；导管腔内高浓度肝素与低浓度肝素比较，前者导管留置时间明显延长（P〈0．05），检塞发生率减少（P〈0．05）。结论临时静脉内留置导管透析血流量充分，透析疗效确切。留置导管常见的并发症有血流量不足、栓塞、感染等，绝大多数能通过处理矫正。导管尖端位置、导管腔肝素浓度、血液粘度等对导管成活、血流量不足、栓塞有重要影响。     

Central venous access: the effects of approach,position, and head rotation on internal jugular vein cross-sectional area

We investigated the effects of approach (lateral versus anterior), position (supine versus Trendelenburg), and head rotation (0 degrees, 20 degrees, and maximum) during central venous catheterization on the area of the right internal jugular vein. Twenty-four patients were placed in supine position, followed by 25 degrees of Trendelenburg position. In each position, measurement of the anterior and lateral right internal jugular vein cross-sectional areas was obtained by using planimetry with the patient's head oriented at 0 degrees, 20 degrees, and maximum rotation. The largest cross-sectional areas were achieved in the lateral approach with the Trendelenburg position. In this position, no differences were detected among head rotation conditions. Data suggest that for those patients who tolerate the Trendelenburg position, the lateral access approach yields the statistically largest target area regardless of head rotation. When the Trendelenburg position is contraindicated, the results of this study suggest other approaches, e.g., the anterior approach, for central venous catheter placement that maximize the internal jugular vein area. IMPLICATIONS: Central venous catheter insertion is commonly performed in the neck by using the right internal jugular vein. This study assesses factors affecting the cross-sectional area of this vein during central venous catheterization.     

Internal Jugular Vein Occlusion Test for Rapid Diagnosis of Misplaced Subclavian Vein Catheter into the Internal Jugular Vein

Background : During subclavian vein catheterization, the most common misplacement of the catheter is cephalad, into the ipsilateral internal jugular vein (IJV). This can be detected by chest radiography. However, after any repositioning of the catheter, subsequent chest radiography is required. In an effort to simplify the detection of a misplaced subclavian vein catheter, the authors assessed a previously published detection method.

Methods : One hundred adult patients scheduled for subclavian vein cannulation were included in this study. After placement of subclavian vein catheter, chest radiography was performed. While the x-ray film was being processed, the authors performed an IJV occlusion test by applying external pressure on the IJV for approximately 10 s in the supraclavicular area and observed the change in central venous pressure and its waveform pattern. The observations thus obtained were compared with the position of catheter in chest radiographs, and the sensitivity and specificity of this method were evaluated using a 2 x 2 table.

Results : In 96 patients, subclavian vein cannulation was successfully performed. In four patients, cannulation was unsuccessful; therefore, these patients were excluded from the study. There were six misplacements of venous catheters as detected by radiography. In five (5.2%) patients, the catheter tip was located in the ipsilateral IJV, and in one (1.02%), the catheter tip was located in the contralateral subclavian vein. In the patients who had a misplaced catheter into the IJV, IJV occlusion test results were positive, with an increase of 3-5 mmHg in central venous pressure, whereas the test results were negative in patients who had normally placed catheters or misplacement of a catheter other than in the IJV. There were no false-positive or false-negative test results.     

Totally implantable venous access ports: A prospective randomized study comparing subclavian and internal jugular vein punctures in children

Background and objectivesTotally implantable venous access ports (TIVAPs) are essential in children who require long-term intermittent intravenous therapy.MethodsPatients who needed to undergo TIVAP implantation were randomly assigned to the internal jugular vein group or the subclavian vein group. The medical histories, operative details and major complications from the time of port implantation to 48 h after port removal were collected.During the use of TIVAPs, satisfaction surveys were regularly conducted for the children and guardians and compared in the two groups.ResultsA total of 216 patients in the subclavian vein group and 199 patients in the internal jugular vein group were included. TIVAPs were successfully implanted in all children. The incidence of postoperative venous access occlusion in the subclavian vein group and internal jugular vein group was 1.5% and 5%, respectively, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). The average satisfaction score of the children and guardians in the subclavian vein group was 9.6 ± 0.3, and that in the internal jugular vein group was 8.3 ± 0.8. There was a significant difference between the 2 groups (P < 0.05).ConclusionsSubclavian vein should be the first choice for TIVAP implantation in children.The level of evidence ratingTreatment study level I.