Search

Over the last 20 years, there has been a great proliferation of studies of different aspects of the long-term vascular access field. Despite the availability of such studies, methodological pitfalls surrounding long-term vascular access research are rarely mentioned. Methodological issues inherent to retrospective analyses make them very poor tools for providing generalizable results, as they often become estimates of local experiences rather than reflections of up-to-date practices. Second, despite being an often-ignored element when designing studies on catheter-related complications, a proper follow-up time definition and its length are crucial to limiting the impact of attrition bias on research results. Finally, meta-analyses constitute a powerful tool in modern evidence-based era, but several pitfalls can affect overall results. When designing a systematic review and meta-analytic process, study selection should always reflect the relevance of clinical questions and the capability to contextualize results in the modern and evidence-based vascular access era.

Catheter-related thrombosis represents one of the most common complications following central venous access insertion. Despite the amount of available studies, many aspects surrounding catheter-related thrombosis remain controversial. Thirteen years ago, the Italian Study Group for Long Term Central Venous Access (GAVeCeLT) developed a nationwide Consensus in order to clarify some key aspects on this topic. Despite most of them still remain valid, however, knowledge around catheter-related thrombosis has greatly evolved over the last decade, with a natural evolution in terms of catheter technologies, insertion techniques, and management bundles. Aims of this editorial are to readdress conclusions of the 2007 GAVeCeLT Consensus in the light of the new relevant evidences that have been added in the last 13 years and to analyze some unsolved issues that still remain debated.

Catheter-related thrombosis natural history understanding might play a pivotal role in the way we approach to symptomatic and asymptomatic events. At the moment, little is known about catheter-related thrombosis natural history in adult patients, where the fear for embolic events and thrombus extension often leads to a precautionary behavior as for screening and management. In adult population, the knowledge of the natural history of symptomatic and asymptomatic catheter-related thromboses can only be indirectly inferred by studies designed for other purposes. From the available evidence on symptomatic patients, it can be assumed that the majority of catheter-related thromboses are early-onset events, where the endothelial damage during vein puncture might play a significant role in their development. Furthermore, symptomatic thrombotic events seem to have a low potential for major complications following treatment. On the contrary, catheter-related thrombosis natural history is more controversial in asymptomatic patients due to the lack of studies in this setting. At the moment, we can only make assumptions from studies in the pediatric population, where asymptomatic events appear to have a low potential for acute embolism and long-term sequelae when no treatment is established.

Background: Technical factors at the moment of catheter insertion might have a role in peripherally inserted central catheter–related thrombotic risk. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to define the actual rate of peripherally inserted central catheter–related symptomatic deep vein thrombosis in patients in whom catheter insertion was performed according to ultrasound guidance, appropriate catheter size choice, and proper verification of tip location. Methods: We searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Only prospective observational studies published in peer-reviewed journals after 2010 up to November 2018 reporting peripherally inserted central catheter–related deep vein thrombosis rate were included. All studies were of adult patients who underwent peripherally inserted central catheter insertion. Results were restricted to those studies which included in their methods ultrasound guidance for venipuncture, catheter tip location, and a catheter size selection strategy. Random-effect meta-analyses and arcsine transformation for binomial data were performed to pool deep vein thrombosis weighted frequencies. Results: Of the 1441 studies identified, 15 studies involving 5420 patients and 5914 peripherally inserted central catheters fulfilled our inclusion criteria. The weighted frequency of peripherally inserted central catheter–related deep vein thrombosis was 2.4% (95% confidence interval = 1.5–3.3) and remained low in oncologic patients (2.2%, 95% confidence interval = 0.6–3.9). Thrombotic rate was higher in onco-hematologic patients (5.9%, 95% confidence interval = 1.2–10). Considerable heterogeneity (I2 = 74.9) was observed and all studies were considered at high risk of attrition bias. Conclusions: A proper technique is crucial at the moment of peripherally inserted central catheter insertion. Peripherally inserted central catheter–related deep vein thrombosis rate appears to be low when evidence-based technical factors are taken into consideration during the insertion procedure.

Purpose Totally implantable venous access devices (Ports) represent the mainstay for infusion therapy in patients undergoing chemotherapy, total parenteral nutrition and/or long-term antibiotic treatment. Amongst mechanical complications, lesions of the catheter wall represent a rare but potentially severe condition. We report our experience with the accidental detection of catheter ruptures in a series of ports removed for complication or for end of use. Methods All ports removed from January 2011 to June 2013 were considered. All removed ports had been inserted according to a standardized protocol including ultrasound-guided percutaneous venipuncture (out-of-plane or in-plane approaches) and electrocardiogram-guided positioning of the tip. Once removed, each catheter was checked by inspection and saline instillation in order to evaluate the integrity of the device itself and rule out possible ruptures. Results In over 338 removed ports, 12 Groshong catheters out of 65 (18.5%) had evidence of partial rupture of the catheter wall. Amongst considered variables, “out-of-plane” approach and type of port (silicon, closed tip with Groshong valve) were the only ones significantly associated with catheter ruptures (p=0.0003 and 0.0008, respectively). We could detect no evidence of rupture in any silicon open-ended catheter (Celsite ports) or in any catheter inserted by “in-plane” approach to the vein. Conclusions The actual advantage of using port connected with Groshong silicon catheters should be questioned, since apparently they are more fragile than standard catheters. Furthermore, ultrasound-guided “out-of-plane” puncture of the internal jugular vein should be discouraged.