Impact of insertion site on complications in central venous access devices
link.springer.com shows its articles on its own site.
Read the article on link.springer.com ↗Article · Feb 2023 · 1 min read
In brief
In brief
This retrospective study of 1,309 patients compared complication rates between subclavian and internal jugular vein insertion sites for long-term central venous access devices. Overall 30-day complication rate was 5.2%, with no significant difference between subclavian (4.5%) and internal jugular (7.0%) approaches, suggesting both routes are equally safe for port and tunneled catheter placement.
Written by the GCMD Library team from the article.
Abstract
Purpose
There is still debate over the safest route for the placement of long-term central venous access devices. The aim of this study was to review a large, single-institution experience to determine the impact of access location on peri-operative complications.
Methods
The records of patients undergoing subcutaneous port (SQP) and tunneled catheter insertion over a seven-year period were reviewed. Vein cannulated (subclavian (SCV) versus internal jugular (IJ) vein), and 30-day complications were assessed. Surgical complications included pneumothorax, hemothorax, infections, arrhythmia or malpositioning requiring intervention.
Results
A total of 1,309 patients were included (618 SQP, 691 tunneled catheters). The location for insertion was SCV (909, 69.4%) and IJ (400, 30.6%). There were 69 complications (5.2%) (41, 4.5% SCV, 28, 7.0% IJV) including: malpositioning/malfunctioning (SCV 13, 1.4% and IJV 14, 3.0%), pneumothorax (SCV 4, 0.4% and IJV 1, 0.3%), hemothorax (SCV 0 and IJV 1, 0.3%), arrhythmia (SCV 1, 0.1%, and IJV 0), and infection within 30 days of placement (SCV 20, 2.2% and IJ 11, 2.8%). The complication rates were not significantly different based on site (p = 0.080).
Conclusion
There was no significant difference in complication rates when using the subclavian versus the internal jugular vein as the site for long-term central venous access.
Level of evidence
III, retrospective comparative study.