Early experience with Chemoport Insertion and Management for Chemotherapy in a Tertiary Hospital, South-South, Nigeria-the COVID-19 Factor

Main Article Content

S. O. Ogbudu
J. N. Eze
C. I. Nwagboso
E. O. Dien
A. U. Etiuma
O. O. Bassey
J. E. Udosen
H. E. Ogbudu

Abstract

Background: Chemoport has been seen as a useful device for long term venous access for infusion of chemotherapeutic drugs and other agents. There are few studies from resource poor countries reporting complications of chemoport. The aim of this early study is to evaluate the feasibility of chemoport insertion without image guidance, by closed technique without direct visualization of a major vein mainly internal jugular vein and to study the complications associated with the procedure. This is a prospective observational study which analysed four patients who underwent chemoport insertion.

 

Objective: Report of our early experience with the insertion of Chemoport for chemotherapy in a tertiary referral hospital in South

South, Nigeria-and the effect of COVID-19 on this procedure. To also create awareness that routine placement of chemoport can be done in the Division of Cardiothoracic and vascular Surgery for chemotherapy and the administration of other agents.

 

Methods: The medical records of these patients were analysed for the patient characteristics, diagnosis, port related complications and their management. Result: Four patients with metastatic malignancy requiring chemotherapy or targeted therapy or both were included in this study. There were 3 female (75%) and one male (25%). Breast carcinoma account for 75% and occurred in the female and large bowel carcinoma account for 25% which occurred in the male. All patients underwent chemo port insertion under 1% local anaesthesia in the theatre under 1g of intravenous ceftriaxone as prophylaxis and post procedure the patients were started on oral cefixime 200mg daily for five days and an initial intramuscular pentazocine 30mg is started and change to oral diclofenac 50mg twelve hours for 3days but could be extended to 5days in those with low pain threshold except it is contraindicated. Visual analogue pain scale was zero immediately after the procedure and range from 4-6 two hours post procedure. The oral diclofenac was extended to five days in one patient. The ECOG was 0-2 in the four patients. None of the patients had any major intraoperative complications. Post operatively one patient was found to have a partial obstruction of chemo port catheter, later fracture and distal migration (25%) at the third course of chemotherapy. Catheter retrieval was planned but patient ECOG had dropped to 3 and considered a high risk for catheter retrieval. Patient was started on vasoprim 75mg daily to prevent catheter thrombosis. No surgical site infection was noted in this study. High complication rate is observed in this study because of the patient size and our early learning curve. Complication rate may be further reduced by using well designed procedure, Doppler duplex ultrasound guided puncture and fluoroscopy with contrast media. Job loss from COVID-19 pandemic, increasing poverty and the fall in naira-dollar exchange are other additional factors affecting affordability of Chemoport and image guided procedure making blind percutaneous insertion the only option.

 

Conclusion: Chemoport insertion make administration of chemotherapy less traumatic and less of thrombophlebitis but not without complications. 

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

Section

Case Report

Author Biographies

S. O. Ogbudu, Division of Cardiothoracic/Vascular Surgery, Department of surgery, University of Calabar Teaching Hospital. Calabar-CRS.

Department of Surgery, College of Medical Sciences, University of Calabar, Calabar, Nigeria

A. U. Etiuma , Division of Cardiothoracic/Vascular Surgery, Department of surgery, University of Calabar Teaching Hospital. Calabar-CRS.

Department of Surgery, College of Medical Sciences, University of Calabar, Calabar, Nigeria

How to Cite

Ogbudu, S. O., Eze , J. N., Nwagboso , C. I., Dien , E. O., Etiuma , A. U., Bassey , O. O., Udosen, J. E., & Ogbudu , H. E. (2025). Early experience with Chemoport Insertion and Management for Chemotherapy in a Tertiary Hospital, South-South, Nigeria-the COVID-19 Factor. Nigerian Journal of Chest Diseases, 5(1), 21-26. https://doi.org/10.82222/njcd.vol5no1.1

References

1. Shah T, Vijay DG, Shah N, Patel B, Patel S, Khant N, Gothwal K. Chemoport Insertion-Less is More. Indian Journal of Surgical Oncology 2021;12(1):139-145

2. Yaacob Y, Nguyen DV, Mohamed Z, Ralib AR, Zakaria R, Muda S. Image-guided chemotherapy insertion by interventional radiologist: a single-centre experience on periprocedural complications. Indian J Radiol Imaging 2013; 23:121-125

3. Kim HJ, Yun J, Kim HJ, Kim KH, Kim SH, Lee SC, Bae SB, Kim CK, Lee NS, Lee KT, Park SK, Won JH, Hong DS. Safety and effectiveness of central venous catheterization in patients with cancer: prospective observational study. J Korean Med Sci 2010;25: 1748-1753

4. Kumar AH, Srinivasan NM, Thakkar JM, Mathew S.A prospective observational study of the outcome of central venous catheterization in 100 patients. Anesth Essays Res. 2013; 7:71-75

5. Vescia S, Baumgartner AK, Jacobs VR, Kiechle-Bahat M, Rody A, Loibl S, Harbeck N. Management of venous portal system in oncology: a review of current evidence. Ann Oncol 2008: 9-15

6. Teichgraber UK, Streitparth F, Cho CH, Benter T, Gebauer B. A comparison of clinical outcomes with regular and low profile totally implanted central venous port system. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2009; 32:975-979

7. Biffi R, Orsi F, Pozzi S, Pace U, Bonomo G, Monfardini L, Della Vigna P, Rotmensz N, Radice D, Zampino MG, Fazio N, de Braud F, Andreoni B, Goldhirsch A. Best choice of central venous insertion site for the prevention of catheter related complications in adult patients who need cancer therapy: a randomized trial. Ann Oncol 2009; 20:935-940

8. Di Carlo I, Cordio S, La Greca G, Privitera G, Russello D, Puleo S, Latteri F. Totally implantable venous access devices implantable surgically: a retrospective study on early and late complications. Arch Surg. 2001; 136:1050-1053

9. Araujo C, Silva JP, Antunes P, Fernandes JM, Dias C, Pereira H, Dias T, Fougo JL, A comparative study between two central veins for the introduction of totally implantable venous access devices in 1201 cancer patients. Eur J Surg Oncol 2008; 34:222-226

10. Teichgraber UK, Kausche S, Nagel SN, Gebauer B. Outcome analysis in 3160 implantations of radiologically guided placement of totally implantable central venous port system. Eur Radiol 2011; 21:1224-1232

11. Babu KG, Suresh -Babu MC Lokanatha D, Bhat GR. Outcomes, cost comparison and patients’ satisfaction during long term central venous access in Cancer patients: experience from a tertiary care cancer institute in south India. Indian J Med Paediatr Oncol 2016; 37:232-238

12. McGee DC Gould MK. Preventing complications of central venous catheterization. N Engl J Med 2003; 348:1123-1133

13. Kim DH, Ryu DY, Jung HJ, Lee SS. Evaluation of complications of totally implantable central venous port system insertion. Exp Ther Med 2019;17: 2013-2018

14. Bishop L, Doughtery L, Bodenham A, Mansi J, Crowe P,

Kibbler C, Shannon M, Treleaven J. Guidance on the

insertion and management of central venous devices in

adults. Int J Lab Hematol 2007; 29:261-278

15. SafdarN, Maki DG. Risk of catheter related bloodstream

infection with peripherally inserted central venous

catheters used in hospitalised patients. Chest 2005;128:

489-495

16. Almhanna K, Pelley RJ, Thomas Budd G, Davidson J,

Moore HC. Subcutaneous implantable venous access

device erosion through the skin in patients treated with

anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy: a case

series. Anti-Cancer drugs 2008; 19:217-219

17. Lee AY. Cancer and thromboembolic disease: pathogenic

mechanisms. Cancer Treat Rev 2002; 28:137-140

18. Nakamura T, Sasaki J, Asari Y, Sato T, Torii S, Watanabe

M. Complications after implantation of subcutaneous

central venous port (PowerPort®). Ann Med Surg 2017;

17:1-6

19. Buba N. Complications of chemoport in children with

cancer: experience of 54,100 catheter days from a tertiary

cancer center of Southern India. South Asia J Cancer 2015;

4:143-145

20. Alexey Surov A, Stoevesandt D, Behrmann C, Wienke A.

Intravascular embolization of venous catheter-causes,

clinical signs, and management: a systemic

review.2009;33:677-685

21. Gibson F, Bodenham A.2013.Misplaced central venous

catheter applied anatomy and practical management. Br J

Anaesth 2013; 110:333-346

22. Verso M, Agnelli G. Venous thromboembolism associated

with long term use of central venous catheters in cancer

patients. J Clin Oncol 2003;213665-3675

23. Budis S, Calick D, Parrish D. misplacement of internal

jugular chemoport into the epidural space. ACS case review

2023:1-10

Most read articles by the same author(s)

Similar Articles

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.