Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 29, 2025
Author Spotlight: Hickman Catheter Use for Long-Term Vascular Access in a Preclinical Swine Model
Published on: March 31, 2023
Complications associated with subsequent tunneled central venous access device placement in children: a retrospective
Ines Moraleda Guyol1,2, Thanusiah Selvamoorthy1, Ramsi Siaj1
1Department of Pediatric Surgery, University Hospital Essen, University Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.
Insights
Previous central venous access device (CVAD) placements do not increase complication risks for subsequent CVADs in children. Complication rates are similar for first-time and repeat CVAD recipients, challenging prior assumptions.
Area of Science:
- Pediatric healthcare
- Medical devices
- Clinical outcomes
Background:
- Central venous access devices (CVADs) are essential for pediatric treatments like chemotherapy but carry risks of infection, mechanical failure, and thrombosis.
- Existing literature does not clarify if prior CVAD use influences complication rates in subsequent placements.
Purpose of the Study:
- To investigate the association between previous central venous access device (CVAD) placements and the risk of complications in subsequent CVADs in pediatric patients.
- To identify factors influencing CVAD complication rates in children.
Main Methods:
- Retrospective analysis of data from 328 tunneled, surgically implanted CVADs in 313 children over two years (2021-2022) at a tertiary pediatric center.
- Evaluation of complication types, incidence, and influence of catheter type (Port vs. Broviac) and insertion technique (venous cutdown vs. percutaneous puncture).
- Cox regression analysis to assess the impact of previous CVAD history, age, gender, weight, and diagnosis on complication rates.
Main Results:
- A total of 102 complications occurred in 96 patients; infections (18.29%) were most frequent, followed by dislocation (6.40%) and mechanical dysfunction (4.27%).
- Broviac catheters and venous cutdown insertion were associated with significantly higher complication risks compared to Ports and percutaneous puncture, respectively.
- The complication rate for patients with previous CVADs (29.17%) was comparable to those receiving a CVAD for the first time (30.74%).
Conclusions:
- This study indicates that previous central venous access device (CVAD) placements do not elevate the risk of complications in subsequent placements in pediatric patients.
- Catheter type (Port vs. Broviac) and insertion technique (percutaneous vs. venous cutdown) significantly impact complication rates.
- Standardized protocols and vigilance remain critical for managing pediatric CVADs, despite findings that do not support increased risk from prior device use.
Abstract:
Central venous access devices (CVADs) are vital instruments in pediatric healthcare, enabling the administration of critical treatments such as chemotherapy and parenteral nutrition. However, despite their advantages, CVADs carry a significant risk of complications, including infections, mechanical failures, and thrombotic events. From the current literature, it is unknown whether previous CVAD placements lead to an increased risk for complications in subsequent CVAD placements. We retrospectively analyzed data regarding tunneled, surgically implanted CVADs in children over a period of 2 years at a single tertiary pediatric center regarding their complications. Between 2021 and 2022, 328 CVAD implantations were performed in 313 children. The average age at implantation was 6.6 ± 5.5 years, while most of the patients were younger than 5 years old. During the study period, a total of 102 complications occurred in 96 patients. Most frequent complications were infections (18.29% of all implantations), followed by dislocation of the catheter tip (6.4 0%) and mechanical dysfunctions (4.27%). No patient died from a complication. The choice of catheter type (Port versus Broviac) showed a significant influence on the occurrence of complications (hazard ratio of 3.964 (95% CI 1.993-7.886; p < 0.001). The risk of infection and dislodgement was also higher when comparing Broviac with Ports implantations (infection: HR = 3.236; 95% CI 1.239-8.454; p = 0.017; dislodgement: HR = 5.781; 95% CI 1.229-27.193; p = 0.026). Cox regression showed a statistically significant higher risk of complications (especially infections) when the catheter was inserted via venous cutdown instead of percutaneous puncture technique (complications: HR = 6.709; 95% CI 1.776-25.337; p = 0.005; infections: HR = 7.28; 95% CI 1.096-48.379; p = 0.04). Cox regression did not show a statistically significant influence on complications for neither of the following factors: age, gender, weight, and oncological/non-oncological diagnosis. The complication rate for patients with previous CVAD was nearly the same as for patients who received a CVAD for the first time (previous CVAD: 29.17%; no previous CVAD: 30.74%).
Conclusion:
Our study challenges conventional assumptions regarding the impact of previous CVAD placements on complication rates. Nevertheless, ongoing vigilance and adherence to standardized protocols remain crucial in mitigating risks and improving outcomes in pediatric CVAD management.
What Is Known:
• Risk factors predisposing for CVAD-related complications remain insufficiently understood. • It is unknown whether previous CVAD placements lead to an increased risk for complications in subsequent CVAD placements.
What Is New:
• The complication rate for patients with previous CVAD appears to be the same as for patients who receive a CVAD for the first time.
