A comparative study between two central veins for the introduction of totally implantable venous access devices in 1201 cancer patients.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: The Subclavian vein has been traditionally the vein of choice for central venous catheterization by general surgeons. Alternative settings for the introduction of totally implantable venous access devices (TIVAD) and the search for lower rates of morbidity led to the choice of other central veins. This study compares two different venous accesses, the subclavian (SC) versus the internal jugular (IJ), in terms of early and late morbidity.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a prospective, non-randomized, observational, uni-institutional (tertiary cancer centre) study. From March 2003 to March 2006, 1231 TIVADs were placed (1201 patients), in an ambulatory operating room, under vital signs and EKG monitoring, using local anaesthesia and without perioperative radiological control.

RESULTS: Of the 1231 TIVAD, 617 were inserted via the SC and 614 via the IJ vein. The two groups (SC vs. IJ) were comparable as to general patient characteristics. Immediate complications were more frequent in the SC than in the IJ approach (respectively, 5.0% vs. 1.5%; p<0.001); Catheter malposition occurred in 2.3% when using the SC vein and in 0.2% for the IJ (p=0.001). Long term morbidity was also more frequent in the SC than in the IJ group (respectively, 15.8%, 87/551, vs. 7.6%, 39/512; p<0.001). Venous thrombosis developed in 2.0% of patients with an SC TIVAD as compared to 0.6% with an IJ TIVAD (p=0.044). Catheter malfunction was significantly dependent on the vein used: SC - 9.4% vs. IJ - 4.3% (p=0.001).

CONCLUSIONS: Our results support the preferential use of the Internal Jugular vein for the insertion of TIVAD.