Clinical examples of late port-associated complications in cancer patients
https://doi.org/10.52485/19986173_2025_2_197
Abstract
Currently, in oncological practice, the installation of fully implantable intravenous port systems has become most often used to provide central vascular access. The advantage of port systems over other types of vascular access is associated with minimizing very early and early complications, but late complications are still relevant. The article presents clinical cases of late port-associated complications, patient management tactics in case of their occurrence and possible outcomes. The frequency of late complications of intravenous port systems was assessed. The most common complications are infections, thrombosis and mechanical damage (pinching and fragmentation of the catheter - pinch-off syndrome, damage to the portal chamber, dislocation of the chamber and catheter of the port system, etc.), which can cause interruption of specialized treatment, ineffectiveness of antitumor therapy, affect the outcome of the disease and cause death. Rare complications include such as eruption of the chamber (bedsore of soft tissues in the area of the port chamber) and extravasation of cytostatic drugs. A key aspect of the prevention of late port-associated complications is compliance, both by medical personnel and by the patient himself, with the recommendations for the care of long-term venous access systems set out in current clinical protocols.
Keywords
intravenous port system,
port-associated complications,
antitumor therapy,
thrombosis,
infection,
mechanical injuries of port systems
Supporting agencies: The study had no sponsorship
About the Authors
E. F. Edelman
Chita State Medical Academy of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation; Zabaikalsky regional oncological dispensary
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Assistant, oncologist-chemotherapist
Oncology Department; Department of Antitumor Drug Therapy
672000; 39а Gorky str.; 672027; 104 Leningradskaya str.; Chita
AuthorID: 1272980; ResearcherID: LXU-8927-2024
E. V. Kayukova
Chita State Medical Academy of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation; Zabaikalsky regional oncological dispensary
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Doctor of Medical Science, Head of the Department, Surgeon-oncologist
Oncology Department; Department of Tumors of the Female Reproductive system
672000; 39а Gorky str.; 672027; 104 Leningradskaya str.; Chita
Author ID: 57201131617; Researcher ID: Q-6603-2017
A. B. Dalaev
Zabaikalsky regional oncological dispensary
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Head of the Department
Department of X-ray Endovascular Methods of Diagnosis and Treatment
672027; 104 Leningradskaya str.; Chita
References
1. Silberzweig J., Sacks D., Khorsandi A., et al. Reporting Standards for Central Venous Access. Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology. 2003. 14(9). doi: 10.1097/01.rvi.0000094617.61428.bc
2. Isyangulova A.Z., Shin A.R., Petkau V.V. Central venous access. Practical recommendations RUSSCO, part 2. Malignant tumors 2024. 14(3s2). 333–345. (In Russ.) doi: 10.18027/2224-5057-2024-14-3s2-2-18
3. Teichgräber U., Kausche S., Nagel S., et al. Outcome analysis in 3,160 implantations of radiologically guided placements of totally implantable central venous port systems. Eur Radiol. 2011. 21(6). 1224-1232. doi: 10.1007/s00330-010-2045-7
4. Nakamura T., Sasaki J., Asari Y., et al. Complications after implantation of subcutaneous central venous ports (PowerPortⓇ). Annals of Medicine and Surgery. 2017. 17. 1–6. doi: 10.1016/j.amsu.2017.03.014
5. Kakkos A., Bresson L., Hudry D., et al. Complication-related removal of totally implantable venous access port systems: does the interval between placement and first use and the neutropenia-inducing potential of chemotherapy regimens influence their incidence? A four-year prospective study of 4045 patients. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017. 43(4). 689–695. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2016.10.020.
6. Madabhavi I., Patel A., Sarkar M., et al. A Study of Use of «PORT» Catheter in Patients with Cancer: A Single-Center Experience. Clin. Med. Insights. Oncol. 2017. 11. 1-6. doi: 10.1177/1179554917691031
7. Dridi M., Mejri N., Labidi S., et al. Implantable port thrombosis in cancer patients: a monocentric experience. Cancer Biol Med. 2016. 13(3). 384-388. doi: 10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2016.0057
8. Cortelezzi A., Moia M., Falanga A., et al. Incidence of thrombotic complications in patients with haematological malignancies with central venous catheters: a prospective multicentre study. Br J Haematol. 2005. 129(6). 811-817. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2141.2005.05529.x.
9. Mirza B., Vanek V.W., Kupensky D.T. Pinch-off syndrome: case report and collective review of the literature. Am Surg. 2004. 70(7). 635-644.
10. Ko S., Park S., Hwang J., et al. Spontaneous fracture and migration of catheter of a totally implantable venous access port via internal jugular vein — a case report. J Cardiothorac Surg. 2016. 11(50). 1-4. doi: 10.1186/s13019-016-0450-y
11. Yamshikov O.N., Marchenko A.P., Emelyanov S.A., et al. Long-term experience in catheterization of the superior cava vein. Transbaikalian Medical Bulletin. 2023. 1. 188-200. (In Russ.) doi: 10.52485/19986173_2023_1_188
12. Lorch H., Zwaan M., Kagel C., Weiss H.D. Central venous access ports placed by interventional radiologists: experience with 125 consecutive patients. Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology. 2001. 24(3). 180-184.
13. Cil B.E., Canyiğit M., Peynircioğlu B., et al. Subcutaneous venous port implantation in adult patients: a single center experience. Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology. 2006. 12(2). 93-98.
14. Biffi R., F. de Braud, Orsi F., et al. Totally implantable central venous access ports for long-term chemotherapy. A prospective study analyzing complications and costs of 333 devices with a minimum follow-up of 180 days. Ann Oncol. 1998. 9(7). 767-773. doi: 10.1023/a:1008392423469
15. Lyanguzov A.V., Kalinina S.L., Sergunina O.Yu., et al. Experience of using fully implantable venous port systems in patients with hemoblastoses. North Caucasus Medical Bulletin. 2020. 15(4). 484-488. (In Russ.) doi: 10.14300/mnnc.2020.15113
16. Vojcickaya A.S., Melekhov S.P., Chapanov A.A., et al. Port-associated thrombosis in patients with oncological diseases. Case series. Issues of oncology. 2023. 69(6). 1099−1103. (In Russ.) doi: 10.37469/0507-3758-2023-69-6-1099-1103
17. Akila S., Kenneth H.K., Shannon A.B., et al. Incidence of mechanical malfunction in low-profile subcutaneous implantable venous access devices in patients receiving chemotherapy for gynecologic malignancies. Gynecol Oncol. 2011. 123(1). 54-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2011.06.012.
18. Veda Padma P.S., Rudra P.A., Naveen B. Pinch-Off Syndrome and Fracture Embolization: a Preventable Complication of TIVADS Indian J. Surg Oncol. 2018. 10(1). 77–79. doi: 10.1007/s13193-018-0817-8
19. Jun S.C., Wei L.W., Salinawati B., et al. Pinch-off syndrome from a chemoport catheter successfully managed with endovascular retrieval. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2021. 65(102294). doi: 10.1016/j.amsu.2021.102294
20. Anthony M., Pascal C., Marion P., Philippe C. Successful percutaneous transvenous approach for pinch-off syndrome: a case report. Eur Heart J Case Rep. 2023. 7(3). doi: 10.1093/ehjcr/ytad111
21. Viral G.G., Parth R., Pankti S., Tariq C. Catheter pinch-off syndrome. Lung India. 2017. 34(5). 470–471. doi: 10.4103/lungindia.lungindia_14_17
22. Burak M.I., İsmail C.S., Rüştü T. Pinch-Off Syndrome, a Rare Complication of Totally Implantable Venous Access Device Implantation: A Case Series and Literature Review. Korean J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2018. 51(5). 333-337. doi: 10.5090/kjtcs.2018.51.5.333.
Supplementary files
Review
For citations:
Edelman E.F., Kayukova E.V., Dalaev A.B. Clinical examples of late port-associated complications in cancer patients. Transbaikalian Medical Bulletin. 2025;(2):197-210. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.52485/19986173_2025_2_197
Views:
28
Email this article 