Comparison of Clinical Follow-up and Complications according to Cancer Types in Patients with Permanent Port Catheter Insertion due to Malignancy

GÜRKAN, Selami Cem; GÜR, Özcan; Donbaloglu, Mehmet Okan

Comparison of Clinical Follow-up and Complications according to Cancer Types in Patients with Permanent Port Catheter Insertion due to Malignancy

Özcan GÜR, (Namık Kemal Üniversitesi, Tıp Fakültesi, Kalp Damar Cerrahisi Anabilim Dalı, Tekirdağ, Türkiye)

Mehmet Okan DONBALOĞLU, (Namık Kemal Üniversitesi, Tıp Fakültesi, Kalp Damar Cerrahisi Anabilim Dalı, Tekirdağ, Türkiye)

Selami Cem GÜRKAN (Namık Kemal Üniversitesi, Tıp Fakültesi, Kalp Damar Cerrahisi Anabilim Dalı, Tekirdağ, Türkiye)

Düzce Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi

1 1

Yıl: 2018 Cilt: 20 Sayı: 3 Sayfa Aralığı: 59 - 62 Metin Dili: İngilizce İndeks Tarihi: 16-12-2020

Comparison of Clinical Follow-up and Complications according to Cancer Types in Patients with Permanent Port Catheter Insertion due to Malignancy

Öz:

Aim: In patients diagnosed with cancer, port catheter insertion is of critical importance for the appropriate delivery of the treatmentand patient comfort. Aim of this study is to compare the patients placed subcutaneous port catheter in terms of the complications andthe port remaining open based on cancer types.Material and Methods: A total of 530 patients who had port catheter insertion in our clinic for chemotherapy between January 2011and December 2017 were included into the study. Of the cases, 234 (44.1%) were female and 296 (55.9%) were male; and the meanage was 57.90±10.18 years. The port catheters were placed subcutaneously under vascular ultrasonography and the position of thecatheter was checked using fluoroscopy. Patients underwent physical examination to check for hemorrhage or hematoma, andunderwent chest x-ray to check for pneumothorax or hemothorax. Patients were called in for checkup for wound-site infection and portthrombosis on the postoperative 10th and 30th days.Results: The majority of the patients who had port insertion were being followed up for gastrointestinal malignancies. Of the patients,224 (42.2%) had port catheter insertion due to colon cancer, 68 (12.8%) due to breast cancer, and 111 (20.9%) due to gastric cancer.Frequency of catheter thrombosis was statistically higher in cases with colon and breast cancer. Wound site infection was observedmore frequently in hematological malignancies.Conclusion: We suggest that, after port insertion, these complications can be reduced by using prophylactic anticoagulants for longterm port use in cases with breast and colon cancer, and by continuing empirical antibiotic treatment against endemic pathogens incases with hematological cancers.

Anahtar Kelime:

Malignite Sebebiyle Kalıcı Port Kateter Takılan Hastalarda Kanser Tiplerine göre Klinik Takip ve Komplikasyonların Karşılaştırılması

Öz:

Amaç: Kanser tanısı alan hastalarda port kateter takılması hasta konforu ve tedavinin uygun verilmesi açısından çok önemlidir. Bu çalışmanın amacı subkutan kalıcı port kateteri takılan hastaların kanser tiplerine göre port açık kalma ve gelişen komplikasyon açısından karşılaştırılmasıdır. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Kliniğimizde Ocak 2011 ve Aralık 2017 arasında kemoterapi amacıyla port kateter takılan 530 hasta çalışmaya alındı. Olguların 234 (%44,1)’ü kadın ve 296 (%55.9)’sı erkek, ortalama yaş 57,90±10,18 idi. Port kataterler vasküler ultrasonografi altında subkutan olarak takıldı ve perioperatif skopi ile katater yeri ve katater kırılması açısından kontrol edildi. Hastalara fizik muayene yapılarak kanama ve hematom açısından, akciğer grafi çekilerek pnömotoraks ve hemotoraks açısından kontrol edildi. Hastalar postoperatif 10. ve 30. günde yara yeri enfeksiyonu ve port trombozu açısından kontrole çağrıldı. Bulgular: Port takılan hastaların büyük çoğunluğu gastrointestinal kanser tipleri sebebiyle takip ediliyordu. Olguların 224 (%42,2)’üne kolon ca, 68 (%12,8)’ine meme ca ve 111 (%20,9) hastaya rektum ca sebebiyle port katater takıldı. Katater trombozu sıklığı kolon ve meme kanseri olan olgularda istatistiksel olarak daha yüksekti. Yara yeri enfeksiyonu ise hematolojik malignensilerde daha sık gözlendi. Sonuç: Port takılmasından sonra meme ve kolon kanseri olgularında uzun süreli port kullanımı için profilaktik antikoagülan kullanımının, hematolojik kanser olgularında ise sık görülen patojenlere etkili ampirik antibiyotik tedavisinin devam edilmesi ile bu komplikasyonların azaltılabileceği kanaatindeyiz.

Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık

1. Krupski G, Froschle GW, Weh FJ, Schlosser GA. Central venous access devices in treatment of patients with malignant tumors: Venous port, central venous catheter and Hickman catheter. Cost-benefit analysis based on a critical review of the literature, personal experiences with 135 port implantations and patient attitude. Chirurg. 1995;66(3):202- 7.
2. Groeger JS, Lucas AB, Thaler HAT, Friedlander-Klar H, Brown AE, Kiehn TE, et al. Infectious morbidity associated with long-term use of venous access devices in patients with cancer. Ann Intern Med. 1993;119(12):1168-74.
3. Dariushnia SR, Wallace MJ, Siddiqi NH, Towbin RB, Wojak JC, Kundu S, et al. Quality improvement guidelines for central venous Access. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2010;21(7):976- 81.
4. Kock HJ, Pietsch M, Krause U, Wilke H, Eigler FW. Implantable vascular access systems: experience in 1500 patients with totally implanted central venous port systems. World J Surg. 1998;22(1):12-6.
5. Heit JA, O’Fallon WM, Petterson TM, Lohse CM, Silverstein MD, Mohr DN, et al. Relative impact of risk factors for deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism: a population-based study. Arch Intern Med. 2002;162(11):1245-8.
6. Bauer KA. Venous thromboembolism in malignancy [Editorial]. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18(17):3065-7.
7. Donati MB, Falanga A, Consonni R, Alessio MG, Bassan R, Buelli M, et al. Cancer procoagulant in acute non lymphoid leukemia: Relationship of enzyme detection to disease activity. Thromb Haemost. 1990;64(1):11-6.
8. Bick RL. Cancer-associated thrombosis. N Engl J Med. 2003;349(2):109-11.
9. Falanga A, Iacoviello L, Evangelista V, Belotti D, Consonni R,. D’Orazio A, et al. Loss of blast cell procoagulant activity and improvement of hemostatic variables in patients with acute promyelocytic leukemia administered all-trans-retinoic acid. Blood. 1995;86(3):1072-81.
10. Kirwan CC, McDowell G, McCollum CN, Kumar S, Byrne GJ. Early changes in the haemostatic and procoagulant systems after chemotherapy for breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 2008;99(7):1000-6.
11. Saphner T, Tormey DC, Gray R. Venous and arterial thrombosis in patients who received adjuvant therapy for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1991;9(2):286-94.
12. Geerts WH, Bergqvist D, Pineo GF, Heit JA, Samama CM, Lassen MR, et al. Prevention of venous thromboembolism: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (8th Edition). Chest. 2008;133(Suppl 6):381S-453S.
13. Demir M, Erdemli B, Kurtoğlu M, Öngen G. Ulusal venöz tromboembolizm profilaksi ve tedavi kılavuzu. İstanbul: GüVen Platformu; 2010.
14. Khorana AA, Otten HM, Zwicker JI, Connolly GC, Bancel DF, Pabinger I, et al. Prevention of venous thromboembolism in cancer outpatients: Guidance from the SSC of the ISTH. J Thromb Haemost. 2014;12(11):1928-31.
15. Cohen AT, Davidson BL, Gallus AS, Lassen MR, Prins MH, Tomkowski W, et al. Efficacy and safety of fondaparinux for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in older acute medical patients: Randomized placebo controlled trial. BMJ. 2006;332(7537):325-9.
16. Smiley S, Almyroudis N, Segal BH. Epidemiology and management of opportunistic infections in immunocompromised patients with cancer. Abstr Hematol Oncol. 2005;8(3):20-30.
17. Beutler E, Lichtman MA, Coller BS, Kipps TJ. Williams Hematology. 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1995.

APA	GÜR Ö, Donbaloglu M, GÜRKAN S (2018). Comparison of Clinical Follow-up and Complications according to Cancer Types in Patients with Permanent Port Catheter Insertion due to Malignancy. , 59 - 62.
Chicago	GÜR Özcan,Donbaloglu Mehmet Okan,GÜRKAN Selami Cem Comparison of Clinical Follow-up and Complications according to Cancer Types in Patients with Permanent Port Catheter Insertion due to Malignancy. (2018): 59 - 62.
MLA	GÜR Özcan,Donbaloglu Mehmet Okan,GÜRKAN Selami Cem Comparison of Clinical Follow-up and Complications according to Cancer Types in Patients with Permanent Port Catheter Insertion due to Malignancy. , 2018, ss.59 - 62.
AMA	GÜR Ö,Donbaloglu M,GÜRKAN S Comparison of Clinical Follow-up and Complications according to Cancer Types in Patients with Permanent Port Catheter Insertion due to Malignancy. . 2018; 59 - 62.
Vancouver	GÜR Ö,Donbaloglu M,GÜRKAN S Comparison of Clinical Follow-up and Complications according to Cancer Types in Patients with Permanent Port Catheter Insertion due to Malignancy. . 2018; 59 - 62.
IEEE	GÜR Ö,Donbaloglu M,GÜRKAN S "Comparison of Clinical Follow-up and Complications according to Cancer Types in Patients with Permanent Port Catheter Insertion due to Malignancy." , ss.59 - 62, 2018.
ISNAD	GÜR, Özcan vd. "Comparison of Clinical Follow-up and Complications according to Cancer Types in Patients with Permanent Port Catheter Insertion due to Malignancy". (2018), 59-62.

APA	GÜR Ö, Donbaloglu M, GÜRKAN S (2018). Comparison of Clinical Follow-up and Complications according to Cancer Types in Patients with Permanent Port Catheter Insertion due to Malignancy. Düzce Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi, 20(3), 59 - 62.
Chicago	GÜR Özcan,Donbaloglu Mehmet Okan,GÜRKAN Selami Cem Comparison of Clinical Follow-up and Complications according to Cancer Types in Patients with Permanent Port Catheter Insertion due to Malignancy. Düzce Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi 20, no.3 (2018): 59 - 62.
MLA	GÜR Özcan,Donbaloglu Mehmet Okan,GÜRKAN Selami Cem Comparison of Clinical Follow-up and Complications according to Cancer Types in Patients with Permanent Port Catheter Insertion due to Malignancy. Düzce Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi, vol.20, no.3, 2018, ss.59 - 62.
AMA	GÜR Ö,Donbaloglu M,GÜRKAN S Comparison of Clinical Follow-up and Complications according to Cancer Types in Patients with Permanent Port Catheter Insertion due to Malignancy. Düzce Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi. 2018; 20(3): 59 - 62.
Vancouver	GÜR Ö,Donbaloglu M,GÜRKAN S Comparison of Clinical Follow-up and Complications according to Cancer Types in Patients with Permanent Port Catheter Insertion due to Malignancy. Düzce Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi. 2018; 20(3): 59 - 62.
IEEE	GÜR Ö,Donbaloglu M,GÜRKAN S "Comparison of Clinical Follow-up and Complications according to Cancer Types in Patients with Permanent Port Catheter Insertion due to Malignancy." Düzce Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi, 20, ss.59 - 62, 2018.
ISNAD	GÜR, Özcan vd. "Comparison of Clinical Follow-up and Complications according to Cancer Types in Patients with Permanent Port Catheter Insertion due to Malignancy". Düzce Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi 20/3 (2018), 59-62.