Alternate Cervical Venous Access Sites for Implantable Port Catheters: Experience at a Single Quaternary Care Institution

• Published in: Cardiovascular and interventional radiology Vol. 46; no. 1; pp. 43 - 48
• Main Authors: Liou, Frank K., Kim, Patrick Y., Yap, S. Paran, Khan, Abdullah, Taylor, Sandra, Pillai, Rex, King, Eric, Shah, Amol, Andrews, R. Torrance, Vu, Catherine T., Goldman, Roger E.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: New York Springer US 01.01.2023; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Cardiology; Catheterization, Central Venous - methods; Catheters; Catheters, Indwelling; Clinical Investigation; Complications; Humans; Imaging; Jugular vein; Jugular Veins; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Nuclear Medicine; Radiology; Survival; Ultrasound; Vascular Access Devices; Veins & arteries; Vena Cava, Inferior; Venous Interventions; Central venous access; Central vein occlusion; Port complications
• ISSN: 0174-1551; 1432-086X
• DOI: 10.1007/s00270-022-03306-9

Introduction Clinical outcomes of implantable port catheters (IPCs) placed via alternative veins such as the external jugular and cervical collaterals have not been well established. This investigation evaluates the short- and long-term outcomes of IPCs inserted via alternate cervical veins (ACV) compared to traditionally inserted IPCs via the internal jugular vein (IJV). Materials and Methods A total of 24 patients who received an IPC between 2010 and 2020 via an ACV—defined as the external jugular vein, superficial cervical vein, or unnamed collateral veins—were identified. Based on power analysis, a matched control group of 72 patients who received IPCs via the IJV was identified. Non-inferiority analysis for port complications was performed between the two groups based on the selected non-inferiority margin of 20%. Secondary end points included complication-free survival and comparison of complications by the time at which they occurred. Results ACV access was non-inferior to traditional access for overall complications. Alternate access resulted in fewer complications than traditional access with an estimated reduction of − 7.0% [95% CI − 23.6%, 39.7%]. There was no significant difference in peri-procedural and post-procedural complications between the two groups. Complication-free survival was also equivalent between the two groups. Conclusion IPC placement via ACVs was non-inferior to IPCs placed via traditional access through the IJV. When abnormal pathology obviates the use of IJV access, other cervical veins may be considered prior to seeking alternate locations such as femoral, translumbar, inferior vena cava, and hepatic veins.