Bja Review Articles Misplaced Central Venous Catheters Applied Anatomy and Practical Management
Introduction
The totally implantable venous admission port (TIVAP) is a completely closed central venous infusion system that is buried under the skin and tin can be retained in the body for a long time.1 The TIVAP comprises a piercing injection port and a central venous catheter system. Information technology is oft used for the infusion of various materials, such as chemotherapeutic drugs, fluid supplements, and parenteral nutrition support.2–five Compared with the peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) or central venous catheter (CVC), the TIVAP has many advantages and is more readily accepted past patients considering of its long service life, ease of nursing, and lack of impact on the quality of life.6–12 TIVAP has been widely used in the clinic in recent years, and clinicians have gradually observed a series of clinical complications, such as arterial puncture, pneumothorax, thrombosis, and catheter rupture.6 These complications not only crusade additional hurting to patients only also delay treatment and even endanger patients' lives. Thus, clinicians take focused more on these complications.
Many methods have been reported to implant TIVAPs into patients, among which the subclavian vein (SCV) and internal jugular vein (IJV) approaches are the two virtually commonly used clinically.ii,6,13 However, few studies have investigated the brachiocephalic vein (BCV) as a central venous access in adult patients. In recent years, with the advances in the application of ultrasound technology, ultrasound-guided TIVAP implantation via the BCV has also been used clinically. Even so, retrospective multicentre studies are lacking regarding its associated complications and condom. In this study, nosotros collected the clinical data of 433 adult patients who had undergone TIVAP implantation through ultrasound-guided BCV puncture at four hospitals in China. We retrospectively analysed the perioperative and postoperative complications to objectively evaluate the safety of supraclavicular, ultrasound-guided TIVAP implantation using the BCV arroyo.
Patients and Methods
From March 2018 to May 2019, the clinical data of patients who had undergone ultrasound-guided TIVAP via the BCV were nerveless from four Chinese hospitals. The functioning process, use and maintenance were recorded in detail, and, excluding patients with incomplete data and who were lost to follow-up, 433 patients were included in this report (236 male and 197 female, aged 23 to 91 years; mean historic period: 60 ± 11 years).
This study was approved past the Ethics Committee of The Second Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, and all the patients signed informed consent forms. The operating procedures were carried out in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations. The TIVAP used was purchased from BARD Medical (BardPort,8,806,061, 6F; UT, USA) and B. BRAUN Medical (B. BRAUN, 04436946, 6.5F; France). The operation was performed past two trained interventional doctors.
Implantation Procedures
Each patient should prove favourable outcomes on preoperative blood routine, blood coagulation and other related tests; if necessary, correct blood coagulation by the transfusion of platelets was performed for those with poor claret coagulation role (INR ≥ ii; platelets < 50×ten9). The operation was performed according to standard aseptic procedures. During the operation, the patient was placed in the supine position, with the head turned to the opposite side, and the posterior foot of the sternocleidomastoid muscle was exposed. Routine disinfection and towel laying were performed within 15 cm of the surgical incision. Nether ultrasound guidance, the puncture indicate was anaesthetized with lidocaine diluted by 5 mL, and and then BCV puncture was performed (Effigy 1). The guide wire was placed after successful venepuncture, and it was confirmed by fluoroscopy that the guide wire entered the superior vena cava. A 5-mm incision was made at the puncture site, the detachable sheath was introduced through the guide wire, and the catheter was introduced through the sheath. A 3-cm skin incision was made at 2 transverse fingers beneath the clavicle on the ipsilateral side, and the subcutaneous tissue was bluntly separated to make a pouch. The pouch, located at the subcutaneous depth of 0.5–i.0 cm, should not exceed the superficial fascia of the pectoralis major muscle, and the size should be sufficient to arrange the body of the port. A subcutaneous tunnel was made with a subcutaneous tunnel needle to guide the catheter to connect with the port torso through the subcutaneous tunnel. Under the fluoroscopy method of digital subtraction angiography (DSA), we confirmed that the cease of the catheter was placed at the junction between the superior vena cava and right atrium (Figure 2). The catheter was cut with scissors vertically in the advisable position to connect the catheter and port. The port was positioned in the pouch and properly fixed, and the incision was sutured after local haemostasis. A not-invasive needle was punctured into the port body; blood was drawn unobstructed, and normal saline was injected to confirm the absence of an exudate. The incision was covered with sterile gauze after disinfection, and butterfly-shaped harmless needles and dressings were properly fixed. The entire X-ray paradigm of the TIVAP was retained to ensure no sharp bending of the catheter and that the position of the finish of the catheter was good (Figure 2).
 | Effigy one Ultrasound-guided puncture of the BCV with an inserted needle in the area of the IJV/SCV/BCV confluence. Abbreviations: BCV, brachiocephalic vein; SCV, subclavian vein; IJV, internal jugular vein. |
 | Figure 2 The catheter crossed over the clavicle to enter the BCV, the catheter tip was placed at the junction betwixt the superior vena cava and the right atrium. Abridgement: BCV, brachiocephalic vein. |
Because the thoracic duct converges into the BCV at the confluence of SCV and IJV on the left, the right BCV arroyo was used to avert lymphatic leakage caused by the thoracic duct injury. When the right BCV puncture failed, the left BCV was selected. Every fourth dimension TIVAP was utilized, the skin at the port was disinfected with Iodophor. Before the infusion of whatsoever drug, the nurse flushed the catheter with 10 mL of 50~100 IU/mL of heparin saline or saline to detect catheter obstruction or subcutaneous leakage, and immediately flushed again after completing each drug infusion. The clinical data were recorded, including the times of puncture, operation time, and management of complications.
The beginning successful puncture indicates that the puncture needle entered the BCV, the guide wire and catheter were introduced smoothly, and there was no secondary skin puncture.
Catheter-related infection indicates that the patient developed fever, chills and blood culture was positive (usually Staphylococcus aureus) subsequently the TIVAP was used.
Port-related infection indicates that the skin of the port body appeared to be broken, ruddy and swollen, and bacterial infection was considered.
Results
In total, 433 patients had undergone ultrasound-guided totally TIVAP via the BCV with a success charge per unit of 100%. The success charge per unit of the first puncture was 94.92% (411/433); eighteen patients were successful in the second puncture, and four patients were successful in the third puncture (Table 1). Amongst them, 15 patients had undergone left BCV puncture after the failure of right BCV puncture, and no serious complications occurred, such as chylothorax. The average operation time was 29.66 ±vii.45 min (range: 18–lx min). The incidence of puncture-related complications was 1.xv% (5/433). The SCA was accidentally punctured in four patients (0.92%), among whom 2 patients were subjected to the left BCV approach; finally, the BCV was punctured successfully. One instance (0.23%) developed a small corporeality of pneumothorax due to accidental puncture of the pleura, and the 2d puncture of the right BCV was successful. The patient did not receive special handling considering he had shown no serious clinical symptoms (Table 2). The average TIVAP time was 318.fifteen ±44.22 days (range: 38–502 days). The incidence of postoperative complications was v.08% (22/433). At that place were two cases of delayed incision healing, 3 cases of catheter-related infection, 6 cases of port-related infection, 2 cases of thrombosis and 8 cases of fibrin sheath formation. One patient had infusion disturbance 2 days after the operation, and chest Ten-ray revealed bending at the connectedness between the catheter and port. Nonetheless, no other serious complications, such as catheter rupture and drug leakage, occurred during the follow-up. Unplanned removal of the TIVAP was caused by postoperative complications in 14 patients.
 | Table i Details of the United states-Guided BCV Puncture for TIVADs (N = 433) |
 | Table ii Incidence of Perioperative and Postoperative Complications and Processing Measures |
Discussion
In this study, we found that ultrasound-guided TIVAP implantation via the BCV not merely has a high success rate of the kickoff puncture but also has few perioperative and postoperative complications, improving the efficiency of TIVAP and providing a reliable implantation method that clinicians tin can choose.
Compared with the traditional method of blind puncture using clinical landmarks, ultrasound-guided percutaneous puncture can significantly meliorate the success rate of the first puncture, reduce puncture-related complications, and avoid the pain of repeated puncture.14,15 Although percutaneous IJV and SCV cannulation are the 2 nigh commonly used methods clinically, the TIVAP, every bit an invasive operation, volition crusade related complications during puncture and long-term retention in the torso, and the take chances of complications is closely related to the different implantation methods. The percutaneous IJV and SCV approaches usually lead to sure clinical complications, such as arterial puncture, pneumothorax, and ectopic catheters.16
Due to the superficial position and thin vascular wall of the BCV, under real-time ultrasound guidance, the BCV lumen remains open regardless of the haemodynamics and respiratory condition and rarely overlaps with the carotid avenue or brachiocephalic artery.17,18 The puncture site is distant from the nasobuccal area, reducing the probability of bacterial contamination in the nasopharynx. Additionally, Brass et al,19 found that clinicians can clearly identify different blood vessels and determine whether they are unobstructed under ultrasound guidance compared with blind puncture using clinical landmarks, thus reducing the overall incidence of complications by 71%, the incidence of arterial puncture by 72%, the time required for successful cannulation past 30.52 seconds, and the probability of successful cannulation for the first time by 57%. Many clinical guidelines also advocate central venous cannulation nether the real-time ultrasound guidance.20,21
The IJV is close to the common carotid artery and to the tiptop of the pleura and tip of the lung behind the sternoclavicular articulation, and no reliable clinical landmarks are available. These factors lead to accidental injury to the common carotid artery and top of the pleura during puncture, resulting in cervical haematoma, pneumothorax, haemothorax and other complications.22 The puncture point of the IJV is high, causing the catheter to exist folded dorsum 180 degrees before it can connect to the TIVAP of the anterior upper chest wall, increasing the risk of ectopia, angle, blockage, and fifty-fifty fracture of the catheter.23,24 Compared with BCV, the path of IJV cannulation is longer. Both the high puncture point and long catheter path will pb to a significant subtract in comfort after cannulation, thereby increasing the risk of unplanned removal of the TIVAP, which not merely causes pain to the patient but besides affects the treatment of the disease. TIVAP implantation via the BCV approach was approximately 62% less likely to be operationally difficult than the IJV arroyo described past Beccaria et al.11
The SCV is just anterior to the subclavian avenue. In the inner 1/3 segment of the clavicle, the top of the pleura and tip of the lung is behind the subclavian vein, a state of affairs that can easily atomic number 82 to cervical haematoma, pneumothorax and haemothorax as percutaneous SCV puncture.nine,25 In one study, 2620 patients had undergone the percutaneous SCV method, and the take a chance of catheter rupture was as loftier equally 2.56%, suggesting that the pinch-off syndrome (POS) is a high-risk factor of catheter rupture, which can pb to pulmonary embolism.23 An explanation may be that, when using the SCV arroyo, the catheter is placed betwixt the clavicle and first rib and pressing the catheter for a long fourth dimension causes POS.23 Additionally, the vascular path to the junction of the superior vena cava and right atrium is straight in the BCV approach; nonetheless, the connectedness between the SCV and superior vena cava is an acute angle.26 This difference in anatomical structure can hands pb to increased ectopic catheters when the percutaneous SCV approach is used. If the ectopic catheter is not corrected, it can event in blockage and damage of the catheter and even rupture of blood vessels during use.
After the ipsilateral IJV and SCV converge behind the sternoclavicular joint to grade the BCV, the diameter of the blood vessel increases significantly. Compared with the IJV and SCV, the anatomical position of the BCV is more fixed, the position is superficial and the bore is larger, making information technology user-friendly for clinicians to puncture the BCV for TIVAP implantation. Additionally, using a strict in-plane approach and placing the ultrasound probe on the supraclavicular area, the best ultrasonic long-centrality section of the BCV tin be obtained. During puncture of the BCV, the medico can discover the unabridged trajectory of the needle because the position of the BCV is not disturbed by the os.7,viii Additionally, the route of the puncture needle is parallel to the pleura, decreasing the occurrence of pneumothorax.
Compared with the SCV approach, the BCV arroyo punctures above the clavicle, and the catheter moves across the top of the clavicle to avoid POS and catheter rupture. Additionally, the IJV, SCV and BCV class a special Y-shaped vascular anatomical structure.27 Afterward the TIVAP was implanted using the BCV approach, the range of move of the catheter changed trivial with the movement of the neck and upper limbs of the patient, effectively reducing the ectopic guide wire in the IJV and SCV. Ectopic catheters and catheter fractures were not observed in this study. Hyun-Jung Shin et al,six reported ectopic catheters in both percutaneous IJV and SCV pathways under ultrasound guidance, and the ectopic catheter charge per unit in the latter arroyo was equally loftier as 5.9%. In this study, one patient had infusion disturbance on the second mean solar day after the performance, and breast X-ray showed catheter bending at the junction betwixt the catheter and port that was related to the performance technique of the surgeon. Improper handling at the junction between the catheter and port, equally well equally the large bag made by the surgeon so that the port has a big range of motion and fifty-fifty rotation, may be important factors leading to catheter bending at the junction.2
The BCV arroyo is often reported in newborns because the diameter and length of the claret vessels of the IJV and SCV are too diminutive; thus, information technology is difficult to perform vascular puncture. However, in the BCV approach in newborns, the left side is used more than the right side, with greater success.7,11,28 Yet, in adult patients, the left BCV is deeper than the correct, the position change is besides greater, and the ultrasound display is poor. Additionally, considering the thoracic duct flows into the central vein through the left BCV, the right BCV is preferred to avoid chylous leakage caused by injury to the thoracic duct.29 Notwithstanding, in 72 patients who had undergone left BCV cannulation, thoracic duct injury was not observed.xi In our study, 15 patients were implanted with the left BCV approach, thirteen due to poor ultrasonography of the right BCV and 2 due to the failure of the right BCV puncture. None of the 15 patients had thoracic duct injury.
The thoracic duct30 is formed by the confluence of the left and right lumbar lymphatic trunks and intestinal lymphatic trunks, passing upwards through the abdomen, breast and cervix, collecting lymph from the left half of the body, abdomen and lower extremities, bookkeeping for approximately three/4 of the homo body'south lymph and flowing into the angle of the left jugular vein. The remaining 1/4 of the lymph is collected by the right lymphatic duct and flows into the correct venous bending. The bore of the thoracic duct is just approximately 2 mm, the wall of the thoracic duct is thin and transparent, the shape is tortuous, the confluence point varies greatly, and the ultrasound brandish is weak.31 Injury of the thoracic duct tin lead to chylothorax, malnutrition, impaired immune role, respiratory function damage and even death. Although information technology tin exist conservatively treated by nutrition command, most thoracic duct ruptures require farther surgical treatment.32 Therefore, the right BCV approach is preferred in our study.
All 433 patients had undergone successful implantation of the TIVAP (100%). The success rate of the first puncture was 94.92% (411/433). The second puncture was successful in eighteen patients (81.82%; 18/22), and the third puncture was successful in four patients (100%; 4/4) (Table 1). The central venous catheter (CVC) is very helpful to diagnose and treat patients, merely there is a chance of arterial puncture and pneumothorax during cannulation; thus, the number of punctures should be reduced equally much as possible. If the 3rd puncture is not successful, nosotros will use ultrasound to evaluate and puncture the correct IJV or SCV; however, our study showed that the 433 patients were successfully punctured via the BCV. Compared with the success rate of the first puncture (86%; 611/709) via the IJV arroyo under ultrasound guidance reported past Beccaria et al,xi we obviously showed a greater advantage (94.92% (411/433)). The cause may be related to the larger diameter of the BCV than those of the IJV and SCV, and the superficial position of BCV, which guarantee successful puncture and explain why BCV is first used in cardinal venous cannulation in infants.7,33
In this study, the incidence of puncture-related complications was one.15% (5/433). The subclavian artery was accidentally punctured in iv cases, amid which one had undergone a second right BCV puncture and some other example had undergone a tertiary correct BCV puncture; both procedures were successful. In the other two cases, due to the germination of local subcutaneous haematoma, the 2nd puncture of the left BCV was also successful afterwards evaluation by ultrasound. The incidence of artery puncture complications was 0.92% (four/433), information technology is inside the complication threshold outlined in SIR guidelines.five We call back that TIVAP implantation via the BCV approach under ultrasound guidance is safer than other approaches, experienced doctors have a lower incidence of accidental arterial puncture. One example (0.23%) developed a small amount of pneumothorax due to accidental puncture of the pleura, and a second puncture of the right BCV was successful. The patient did not receive special treatment because he showed no serious clinical symptoms and other serious complications related to puncture did not occur. Breschan et al,7 reported that the success rate of ultrasound-guided TIVAP via the BCV in premature infants was 94%; accidental puncture (1%) of the right SCA occurred in one 2.ane-kg baby, and no other serious complications related to puncture were found.
The postoperative complication rate was 5.08% (22/433; 0.111/1000 catheter-days) and the overall complexity rate was 6.24% (27/433; 0.137/k catheter-days), which were lower than that of ultrasound-guided cannulation techniques of the IJV in the study of Tsuruta et al,2 (the postoperative complexity rate of nine.ane%; 0.201/one thousand catheter-days) and Gebauer et al,34 (the overall complications deemed for 0.fifteen per k catheter day).
Delayed incision healing occurred in 2 cases, and the peel of the incision was found to be broken in 1 case 2 weeks subsequently the performance without swelling and exudation and healed well after debridement and suture. Another instance had incision dehiscence with suppuration in the second month subsequently operation and pain after constant pressing; the TIVAP was removed in advance afterward the failure of handling with antibiotics. Peel ulcers caused by port-related infection were found in 6 patients, catheter-related infection occurred in 3 patients, and the TIVAP was removed in half-dozen patients after ineffective systemic antibiotics therapy. During the follow-up menstruation, there were nine cases of complications of port-related infection and catheter-related infection. In the total 197,694 catheter days, resulting in 0.045 infectious complications per yard catheter days in the total of 197,694 catheter days. Yet, the data reported by Gebauer et al,34 is as high as 0.15 per 1000 catheter days. The infectious complications were related to aseptic operation during operation and standardized nursing subsequently operation. Careful functioning, attention to catheter maintenance and regular care (once a month) are crucial factors to avoid unplanned TIVAP extraction.
The infusion was blocked in 2 patients due to thrombosis and in viii patients due to fibrin sheath formation. The TIVAP was removed after ineffective thrombolytic therapy. Some other patient had infusion disturbance 2 days subsequently the performance, and chest X-ray showed bending at the connection between the catheter and port. However, no other serious complications occurred such as catheter rupture and drug leakage during follow-up. Finally, the TIVAP was removed in 14 patients (iii.23%) ahead of schedule due to postoperative complications. The average TIVAP carrying time was 318.15 ± 44.22 days in this report (range: 35~521 days).
This study is a multicentre study, which strives to considerately evaluate the safety of supraclavicular, ultrasound-guided TIVAP via the BCV in adult patients. However, our study has some limitations. First, information technology is retrospective and non-random, and some useful information may be lost during the follow-up. Second, we did not written report whether other factors such as the patient's BMI and disease blazon influenced the occurrence of complications. Finally, nosotros only studied TIVAP implantation via the BCV arroyo without comparison other ordinarily used venous approaches (IJV and SCV). Therefore, randomized controlled trials with large samples warrant farther report.
Decision
In summary, supraclavicular, in-aeroplane, real-time ultrasound-guided TIVAP implantation via the BCV is a safety and effective central venous cannulation method for adult patients. Our multicentre study revealed that the operation non simply has a high success rate but too has low complications. Chemotherapy and parenteral nutrition tin be provided for patients on the day of operation, and postoperative maintenance is unproblematic and convenient.
Ethical Approval
The study was approved past the ideals committee of The 2d Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University and consent to participate from the patient was available.
All procedures of this written report were performed in accordance with the Announcement of Helsinki.
Disclosure
The authors declare that they accept no conflicts of interest for this piece of work.
References
1. Tang TT, Liu 50, Li CX, et al. Which is better for patients with chest cancer: Totally Implanted Vascular Admission Devices (TIVAD) or Peripherally Inserted Fundamental Catheter (PICC)? World J Surg. 2019;43(9):2245–2249. doi:10.1007/s00268-019-05022-x
2. Tsuruta S, Goto Y, Miyake H, et al. Late complications associated with totally implantable venous access port implantation via the internal jugular vein. Support Care Cancer. 2019;28:2761–2768. doi:10.1007/s00520-019-05122-3
3. Ignatov A, Hoffman O, Smith B, et al. An 11-year retrospective written report of totally implanted central venous admission ports: complications and patient satisfaction. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2009;35(3):241–246. doi:x.1016/j.ejso.2008.01.020
4. Biffi R, de Braud F, Orsi F, et al. Totally implantable central venous admission ports for long-term chemotherapy. A prospective written report analyzing complications and costs of 333 devices with a minimum follow-upward of 180 days. Ann Oncol. 1998;nine(7):767–773. doi:x.1023/A:1008392423469
5. Dariushnia SR, Wallace MJ, Siddiqi NH, et al. Quality comeback guidelines for key venous access. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2010;21(7):976–981. doi:10.1016/j.jvir.2010.03.006
6. Shin HJ, Na HS, Koh WU, et al. Complications in internal jugular vs subclavian ultrasound-guided central venous catheterization: a comparative randomized trial. Intensive Intendance Med. 2019;45(7):968–976. doi:10.1007/s00134-019-05651-nine
7. Breschan C, Graf Thousand, Jost R, et al. A retrospective analysis of the clinical effectiveness of supraclavicular, ultrasound-guided brachiocephalic vein cannulations in preterm infants. Anesthesiology. 2018;128(1):38–43. doi:10.1097/ALN.0000000000001871
8. Sun X, Xu J, Xia R, et al. Efficacy and safety of ultrasound-guided totally implantable venous access ports via the right innominate vein in developed patients with cancer: single-centre experience and protocol. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2019;45(2):275–278. doi:ten.1016/j.ejso.2018.07.048
9. Expert Panel on Interventional R, Shaw CM, Shah S, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria ((R)) radiologic direction of central venous admission. J Am Coll Radiol. 2017;14(11S):S506–S529.
10. Xia R, Sun X, Bai X, et al. Efficacy and safety of ultrasound-guided cannulation via the right brachiocephalic vein in developed patients. Medicine. 2018;97(50):e13661. doi:10.1097/Physician.0000000000013661
11. Beccaria PF, Silvetti S, Lembo R, et al. The brachiocephalic vein as a safe and viable alternative to internal jugular vein for central venous cannulation. Anesth Analg. 2018;127(1):146–150. doi:10.1213/ANE.0000000000003357
12. Taxbro K, Hammarskjold F, Thelin B, et al. Clinical touch on of peripherally inserted central catheters vs implanted port catheters in patients with cancer: an open-label, randomised, ii-middle trial. Br J Anaesth. 2019;122(6):734–741. doi:10.1016/j.bja.2019.01.038
xiii. Vezzani A, Manca T, Brusasco C, et al. A randomized clinical trial of ultrasound-guided infra-clavicular cannulation of the subclavian vein in cardiac surgical patients: short-axis versus long-centrality approach. Intensive Intendance Med. 2017;43(eleven):1594–1601. doi:10.1007/s00134-017-4756-vi
xiv. Ma LI, Liu Y, Wang J, Chang Y, Yu L. Totally implantable venous admission port systems and associated complications: a single-establishment retrospective assay of 2996 breast cancer patients. Mol Clin Oncol. 2016;four(3):456–460. doi:10.3892/mco.2016.726
15. Fragou M, Gravvanis A, Dimitriou 5, et al. Real-time ultrasound-guided subclavian vein cannulation versus the landmark method in critical care patients: a prospective randomized study. Crit Care Med. 2011;39(vii):1607–1612. doi:x.1097/CCM.0b013e318218a1ae
xvi. Ruesch South, Walder B, Tramèr, M R. Complications of key venous catheters: internal jugular versus subclavian access - A systematic review. Crit Intendance Med. 2002;30(2):454–460. doi:10.1097/00003246-200202000-00031
17. Breschan C, Graf 1000, Jost R, et al. A Retrospective Analysis of the Clinical Effectiveness of Supraclavicular, Ultrasound-guided Brachiocephalic Vein Cannulations in Preterm Infants. Anesthesiology. 2018;128(1):38–43.
xviii. Jordan JR, Moore EE, Haenel J. Ultrasound-guided supraclavicular access to the innominate vein for cardinal venous cannulation. J Trauma Acute Intendance Surg. 2014;76(v):1328–1331. doi:10.1097/TA.0000000000000209
19. Brass P, Hellmich M, Kolodziej L, Schick Chiliad. Ultrasound guidance versus anatomical landmarks for internal jugular vein catheterization. Cochrane Database Systematic Rev. 2015.
20. Saugel B, Scheeren TWL, Teboul, J-L. Ultrasound-guided central venous catheter placement: a structured review and recommendations for clinical do. Crit Care. 2017;21(1):225. doi:10.1186/s13054-017-1814-y
21. Franco-Sadud R, Schnobrich D, Mathews BK, et al. Recommendations on the use of ultrasound guidance for central and peripheral vascular admission in adults: a position statement of the guild of hospital medicine. J Hosp Med. 2019;14:E1–E22. doi:10.12788/jhm.3287
22. Jankovic RJ, Pavlovic MS, Stojanovic MM, et al. Risk factors associated with carotid avenue puncture post-obit landmark-guided internal jugular vein cannulation attempts. Med Princ Pract. 2011;20(6):562–566. doi:10.1159/000329788
23. Lin CH, Wu HS, Chan DC, Hsieh CB, Huang MH. The mechanisms of failure of totally implantable central venous admission system: assay of 73 cases with fracture of catheter. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2010;36(1):100–103. doi:x.1016/j.ejso.2009.07.011
24. Nagasawa Y, Shimizu T, Sonoda H, Chou H, Mekata East. Is catheter rupture rare later on totally implantable access port implantation via the right internal jugular vein? Report of a case. Surg Today. 2014;44(7):1346–1349. doi:10.1007/s00595-013-0631-4
25. Kurul S, Saip P. Totally implantable venous-access ports: local problems and extravasation injury. Lancet Oncol. 2002;3(11):684–692.
26. Gibson F, Bodenham, A. Misplaced central venous catheters: applied anatomy and practical management. Br J Anaesth. 2013;110(3):333–346. doi:ten.1093/bja/aes497
27. Aydin T, Balaban O, Koculu R. Where is the Guidewire? Confirmation of central catheter placement in the brachiocephalic vein using Y-shape visualization by ultrasound. Cureus. 2019;xi(2):e4124.
28. Habas F, Baleine J, Milesi C, et al. Supraclavicular catheterization of the brachiocephalic vein: a way to prevent or reduce catheter maintenance-related complications in children. Eur J Pediatr. 2018;177(3):451–459. doi:10.1007/s00431-017-3082-10
29. Sun X, Bai X, Cheng L, et al. Comparison of ultrasound-guided correct brachiocephalic and correct subclavian vein cannulation in adult patients. J Ultrasound Med. 2019;38(10):2559–2564. doi:ten.1002/jum.14947
30. Skandalakis JE, Skandalakis LJ, Skandalakis, P N. Anatomy of the lymphatics. Surg Oncol Clin N Am. 2007;16(1):1–sixteen. doi:10.1016/j.soc.2006.10.006
31. Johnson OW, Chick JF, Chauhan NR, et al. The thoracic duct: clinical importance, anatomic variation, imaging, and embolization. Eur Radiol. 2016;26(eight):2482–2493. doi:10.1007/s00330-015-4112-6
32. Parvinian A, Mohan GC, Gaba RC, et al. Ultrasound-guided intranodal lymphangiography followed by thoracic duct embolization for treatment of postoperative bilateral chylothorax. Head Cervix. 2014;36(2):E21–24. doi:10.1002/hed.23425
33. Breschan C, Platzer M, Jost R, et al. Sequent, prospective case series of a new method for ultrasound-guided supraclavicular approach to the brachiocephalic vein in children. Br J Anaesth. 2011;106(5):732–737. doi:x.1093/bja/aer031
34. Gebauer B, El-Sheik M, Vogt M, Wagner H-J. Combined ultrasound and fluoroscopy guided port catheter implantation—High success and low complication rate. Eur J Radiol. 2009;69(iii):517–522. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2007.10.018
Source: https://www.dovepress.com/perioperative-and-postoperative-complications-of-supraclavicular-ultra-peer-reviewed-fulltext-article-TCRM
0 Response to "Bja Review Articles Misplaced Central Venous Catheters Applied Anatomy and Practical Management"
Post a Comment