跳至主要内容
临床试验/NCT00272623
NCT00272623已完成不适用

A Prospective, Randomized Trial Comparing Seldinger Technique Versus Venous Cut-Down for Placement of Totally Implantable Venous Access Ports

University of Zurich2 个研究点 分布在 1 个国家目标入组 152 人开始时间: 2006年1月最近更新:
适应症

试验速览

阶段
不适用
状态
已完成
入组人数
152
试验地点
2
主要终点
Implantation success rate

研究概览

简要总结

Since the first placement of a totally implantable venous access port (TIVAP) by Niederhuber et al in 1982 its application to provide long-term central venous access has dramatically increased. These systems have dramatically simplified the administration of chemotherapy and parenteral nutrition as well as the repetitive collection of blood samples.

Initial retrospective studies have focused on the complications associated with different implantation techniques. Subsequently, major attention has been payed to the comparison of distinct types of TIVAPs. To date a variety of approved port systems are available. These devices can be either implanted using the Seldinger technique or by venous cut-down of the cephalic vein Despite the global use of these established implantation procedures prospective, randomized trials directly comparing these two approaches are still lacking. So, the choice, which technique to use is left to the surgeon's preference.

The aim of this study is to directly compare the Seldinger technique versus cephalic vein cut down for placement of TIVAPs in respect of implantation success rate, operation time and perioperative morbidity.

详细描述

Since the first placement of a totally implantable venous access port (TIVAP) by Niederhuber et al in 1982 its application to provide long-term central venous access has dramatically increased. These systems have dramatically simplified the administration of chemotherapy and parenteral nutrition as well as the repetitive collection of blood samples.

Initial retrospective studies have focused on the complications associated with different implantation techniques. Subsequently, major attention has been payed to the comparison of distinct types of TIVAPs. To date a variety of approved port systems are available. These devices can be either implanted using the Seldinger technique or by venous cut-down of the cephalic vein Despite the global use of these established implantation procedures prospective, randomized trials directly comparing these two approaches are still lacking. So, the choice, which technique to use is left to the surgeon's preference.

The aim of this study is to directly compare the Seldinger technique versus cephalic vein cut down for placement of TIVAPs in respect of implantation success rate, operation time and perioperative morbidity.

After an informed consent has been obtained, patients will be randomized as follows: By means of sealed envelopes a total of 152 patients will be allocated either to TIVAP placement using Seldinger technique or by venous cut down (n= 76 in each group).

Operations will be performed in local or general anaesthesia either on an outpatient basis or via 24h-admission. Changes of technique due to catheter implantation failure, operation time and intraoperative complications will be assessed during the procedure. Postoperative examination will be standardized in both groups, i.e. chest radiography (to confirm catheter placement and to exclude pneumothorax) as well as final clinical examination at discharge or before patient transfer.

研究设计

研究类型
Interventional
分配方式
Randomized
干预模型
Parallel
主要目的
Treatment
盲法
Single

入排标准

年龄范围
18 Years 至 —(Adult, Older Adult)
性别
All
接受健康志愿者

入选标准

  • Oncological patients with an indication for a long-term parenteral treatment
  • Age > 18 years
  • Elective operations only

排除标准

  • Patients with limited German proficiency (informed consent not possible)
  • Anticoagulation (INR >2.5), coagulopathy, Tc<60'000/mI
  • Bilateral intervention/irradiation on shoulder, clavicle or breast

结局指标

主要结局

Implantation success rate

次要结局

  • Intraoperative change of surgical technique
  • Operation time
  • Intra-/perioperative complications (arterial puncture, major arrhythmia, pneumothorax, haemorrhage/haematoma)
  • Amount of puncture attempts needed (new perforation of the skin)

研究者

申办方类型
Other

研究点 (2)

Loading locations...

相似试验