Utilization and Complications of Central Venous Access Devices in Oncology Patients

Purpose: To describe how central venous access devices (CVADs) are utilized for ambulatory oncology patients and to evaluate the rate of complications. Method: Single institution retrospective study of oncology patients with CVADs who received systemic treatment at the Walker Family Cancer Centre (WFCC) between 1 January and 31 December 2018. Results: A total of 480 CVADS were placed in 305 patients, of which 408 (85%) were peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and 72 (15%) were implanted vascular access devices (PORTs). The incidence of early and late complications was 9% and 24%, respectively. For the entire cohort, the rate of venous thromboembolism (VTE) was 16%, of which 9% were CVAD-related thrombosis (CRTs) and 7% were distant VTE. The CRT rates were similar for PICCs and PORTs (9% vs. 7%). A total of 6% of CVADs were complicated by infection (i.e., localized infections and bacteremia), with a total infection rate of 0.43 and 0.26 per 1000 indwelling days for PICCs and PORTs, respectively. The incidence of central line associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI) was greater for PICCs than PORTs, at a rate of 0.22 compared with 0.08 per 1000 indwelling days, respectively. The premature catheter removal rate was 26% for PICCs and 18% for PORTs. PORTs required more additional hospital visits. Conclusions: PICCs were utilized more frequently than PORTs and had a higher rate of premature removal. The rates of VTE and CRT were similar for both CVAD types. PORTs had a lower rate of infection per 1000 indwelling days. However, the management of PORT related complications required more visits to the hospital and oncology clinic.     

An Environmental Scan of the National and Provincial Diagnostic Reference Levels in Canada for Common Adult Computed Tomography Scans

Several regulatory bodies have agreed that low-dose radiation used in medical imaging is a weak carcinogen that follows a linear, non-threshold model of cancer risk. While avoiding radiation is the best course of action to mitigate risk, computed tomography (CT) scans are often critical for diagnosis. In addition to the as low as reasonably achievable principle, a more concrete method of dose reduction for common CT imaging exams is the use of a diagnostic reference level (DRL). This paper examines Canada's national DRL values from the recent CT survey and compares it to published provincial DRLs as well as the DRLs in the United Kingdom and the United States of America for the 3 most common CT exams: head, chest, and abdomen/pelvis. Canada compares well on the international scale, but it should consider using more electronic dose monitoring solutions to create a culture of dose optimization.