Improving outcomes of short peripheral vascular access in oncology and chemotherapy administration.

A short peripheral intravenous catheter or cannula (PIVC) is frequently used to deliver chemotherapy in oncology practice. Although safe and easy to insert, PIVCs do fail, leading to personal discomfort for patients and adding substantially to treatment costs. As the procedure of peripheral catheterization is invasive, there is a need for greater consistency in the choice, insertion and management of short PIVCs, particularly in the oncology setting where there is a growing trend for patients to receive many different courses of IV treatment over a number of years, sometimes with only short remissions. This article reviews best practice with respect to PIVCs in cancer patients and considers the necessity for bundling these actions. Two care bundles, addressing both insertion and ongoing care and maintenance, are proposed. These have the potential to improve outcomes with the use of short PIVCs for vascular access in oncology practice.

GAVeCeLT* consensus statement on the correct use of totally implantable venous access devices for diagnostic radiology procedures.

The use of totally implantable venous access devices in radiology may be associated with complications such as occlusion of the system (because of the high density of some contrast), infection (if the port is not handled in aseptic conditions, using proper barrier protections), and mechanical complications due to the high-pressure administration of contrast by automatic injectors (so-called power injector), including extravasation of contrast media into the soft tissues, subintimal venous or myocardial injection, or serious damage to the device itself (breakage of the external connections, dislocation of the non-coring needle, or breakage of the catheter). The last problem - i.e., the damage of the device from a power injection - is not an unjustified fear, but a reality. A warning by the US Food and Drug Administration of July 2004 reports around 250 complications of this kind, referring to both port and central venous catheters and peripherally inserted central catheter systems, which occurred over a period of several years; in all cases, the damage occurred during the injection of contrast material by means of power injectors for computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging procedures. Though the risk associated with the use of ports in radiodiagnostics is thus clear, it has been suggested that administration of the contrast material via the port may have some advantage in terms of image quality, increased comfort for the patient, and maybe more accurate reproducibility of the patient's own follow-up exams. This contention needs to be supported by evidence. Also, since many cancer patients who need frequent computed tomography studies already have totally implantable systems, it would seem reasonable to try to define how and when such systems may safely be used. The purpose of this consensus statement is to define recommendations based on the best available evidence, for the safe use of implantable ports in radiodiagnostics.

Sensory perceptions of patients with cancer undergoing surgical insertion of a totally implantable venous access device: a qualitative, exploratory study.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: to investigate sensory perceptions of patients who underwent insertion of a totally implantable venous access device (TIVAD) under local anesthesia. RESEARCH APPROACH: qualitative, exploratory study. SETTING: tertiary care center in Belgium. PARTICIPANTS: 20 adult patients with cancer or hematologic disease undergoing a first-time TIVAD insertion. METHODOLOGIC APPROACH: immediately after insertion, patients were asked to describe their sensory perceptions during each of four phases. Descriptions were documented in a sensory information grid (SIG) that was composed of a row and column matrix of entries for the four phases of the procedure and the five sensory modalities. Verbatim descriptions of patients were assigned labels using a descriptive coding process. MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES: sensory perceptions in the modalities of hearing, sight, touch, smell, and taste. FINDINGS: patients experienced many sensory perceptions that mainly occurred during preparation of the patients and surgical equipment (phase 2) and during the actual TIVAD insertion (phase 3). Patients perceived fewer olfactory sensations. No taste perceptions were mentioned. CONCLUSIONS: patients reported numerous sensory perceptions during TIVAD insertion. The SIG method proved suitable for assessing and documenting patients' sensory perceptions. INTERPRETATION: the reported descriptions can be used (a) to develop a structured questionnaire to quantitatively assess sensory perceptions and (b) to prepare patients for what to expect with regard to sensory information experienced before, during, and after TIVAD insertion. This method for exploring and documenting sensory perceptions might be applicable to other diagnostic or therapeutic interventions.

Prospective clinical evaluation of the Polyperf® Safe, a safety Huber needle, in cancer patients.

PURPOSE: Evaluation of the Polyperf® Safe (PPS) needle on safety and user-friendliness, as experienced by first-time and non-first-time users of the device. METHODS: A prospective, descriptive study was carried out at the University Hospitals Leuven, Belgium. Five hundred PPS needles were individually evaluated in cancer patients. Different aspects of the PPS were assessed: packaging, needle insertion, and needle removal. Nurses were asked whether they had previously inserted or removed this type of needle. We compared the PPS needle with the standard Gripper® needle in terms of safety, ease of use, and ease of training. RESULTS: Three hundred sixty-six evaluation forms were available for analysis (73.2%). Packaging and access evaluations were scored positively, except for two aspects: (1) needle stability, and (2) ease of dressing. Ease of removal was scored unsatisfactory in up to 22.4% of the registrations. Pain at insertion was reported in about 20% registrations, and blood contact was reported by 2.5% of non-first-time users. Safety was scored as good, although ease of use and ease in training scored 25.4% and 43.8%, respectively, lower than the Gripper®. CONCLUSIONS: In general, nurses evaluated the PPS positively, with the exception of needle stability, ease of dressing, and ease of removal. No needlestick accidents were recorded. Aspects of ease of use and ease of training for PPS needles scored less than those for the Gripper® needles in up to one-third of the registrations.

Central vascular access devices in oncology and hematology considered from a different point of view: how do patients experience their vascular access ports?

BACKGROUND: Oncology patients require long-term vascular access, but the subjective experience of having a port in daily life is not well studied. METHODS: In a prospective study, patients at an outpatient clinic filled out a questionnaire. INSTRUMENT: The questionnaire consisted of four questions. RESULTS: The top three reported benefits of having a port were (1) no more peripheral venipunctures, (2) greater convenience, and (3) arms left free for activities of daily living. Patients disliked the visibility of ports and complained about site soreness. CONCLUSIONS: Good nursing care includes the ability to provide optimal care and maintenance of the vascular access device, but understanding the patients' point of view is an added value.