Persistent left superior vena cava (PLSVC) with absence of right superior vena cava (SVC), also known as isolated PLSVC, is a relatively rare type of congenital body venous malformation. Isolated PLSVC is asymptomatic, however, it will bring clinical difficulties to the implantation of the totally implantable venous access port (TIVAP). We reported a 41 years, male patient with esophageal cancer, who needed neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy. Through doppler ultrasonography, computed tomography (CT) and vascular 3D-reconstruction, we found him to be a patient with PLSVC with absence of right SVC before the insertion of TIVAP. Hence, we chose the left approach in which the needle was inserted into the sternocleidomastoid clavicular head lateral notch in left supraclavicular fossa as the puncture point. The depth of the catheter tip from the root of the neck to the puncture point was 21.5 cm and the catheter tip was located at the junction of the PLSVC and the right atrium, at the dilated coronary sinus. The procedure was successful and the patient received expected neoadjuvant chemotherapy combined with immunotherapy after operation, and anticoagulant therapy was performed to prevent thrombosis in coronary sinus and superior vena cava. There was no major catheter-related complication during the period of TIVAP.
Objective This study aimed to quantitatively investigate the preferences and willingness of patients with breast cancer to pay for central venous access and to provide implications for the clinical selection of appropriate chemotherapy pathways. Methods A discrete-choice experiment survey was conducted to elicit the preferences for central venous access in three hospitals in east, middle and west China. The conditional logit model was used to analyse the relative importance of six central venous access-related attributes: risk of thrombosis, risk of infections, restriction of daily activities, maintenance interval, catheter incision size and out-of-pocket costs. Results The valid data for a total of 103 patients was collected from three hospitals. All six attributes significantly influenced patients’ preferences for central venous access. The risk of thrombosis (RIS=26.0%) and risk of infections (RIS=24.3%) were the top two attributes influencing patients’ preferences for central venous access. To reduce the risk of thrombosis and infection from 12% and 8% to 1%, patients were willing to pay 14 861.2 yuan and 13 907.2 yuan, respectively. The catheter incision size was of least concern (RIS=4.6%); the patients were only willing to pay 2 653.6 yuan for smaller catheter incisions. Conclusion Thrombosis and infection are the primary factors that affect the choice of central venous access for patients with breast cancer. Patients have a sensitive trade-off between safety and out-of-pocket costs; with the change in thrombosis and infection risk, patients’ willingness to pay changes accordingly.
The study aims to investigate the effect of the ratio of long axis to short axis (RLS) of upright polypropylene infusion bag on discharging process and to search the best RLS. Aiming at five different RLS (1.5:1, 2:1, 3:1, 4:1 and 5:1, respectively) with the volume of 100 mL, 250 mL and 500 mL, respectively, based on finite element method, analyzing the variation of stress distribution, emptying rate, drugging space and steadiness coefficient, etc. For the bags of the same volume, emptying rate increased with increasing of RLS, but the steadiness coefficient decreased with increasing of RLS. The specific increasing amplitude of emptying rate and decreasing range of steadiness coefficient were as follows: 20% and 49% for 100mL infusion bag, 9% and 51% for 250 mL infusion bag, and 11% and 46% for 500 mL infusion bag, respectibvely, when RLS increased from 1.5:1 to 5:1. Comparatively speaking, the increasing amplitude of the emptying rate is remarkably less than the decreasing range of the steadiness coefficient. By comprehensive consideration of both emptying rate and steadiness coefficient, lower RLS is recommended for upright polypropylene infusion bag.
ObjectiveTo investigate and analyze the strategies for choosing venous access devices for critically ill patients. MethodsThe medical staffs in ICU were required to fulfill a questionnaire on the knowledge and application of venous access devices in critically ill patients in May 2015.A descriptive statistical analysis was carried out on the answers generated from the questionnaire using SPSS 19.0 software. ResultsA total of 50 questionnaires were distributed randomly and 46 valid questionnaires were recovered.The effective response rate was 92.0%.The proportion of junior, intermediate and senior medical staffs was 80.4%, 13.0% and 6.6%, respectively.The proportion of doctors and nurses was 39.1% and 60.9%, respectively.The average seniority was (5.7±4.9)years.The proportion of ICU medical staffs who were acquainted with PIV, ACVC, PICC, TCVC, PORT and Midline was 100.0%, 100.0%, 100.0%, 69.6%, 43.5% and 13.0%, respectively.The proportion of ICU medicial staffs who would take the styles of drug, the time of treatment, the patients' condition and the costs into consideration when choosing venous access devices was 100.0%, 100.0%, 64.0% and 18.0%, respectively.91.3% and 39.1% of ICU medical staffs would choose PIV and ACVC respectively if the time of treatment was less than 1 week.56.5%, 69.6% and 26.1% of ICU medical staffs would choose PIV, ACVC and PICC respectively if the time of treatment was between 1 and 4 weeks.30.4%, 39.1%, 82.6% and 32.6% of ICU medical staffs would choose PIV, ACVC, PICC and PORT respectively if the time of treatment was more than 4 weeks.52.2% of ICU medical staffs were acquaint with the styles and the indication of antibiotic coating central venous catheter.The main reasons for infusion failure were poor vascular condition (91.3%), old age (52.2%), skin lesions (39.1%) and pipeline plugging (26.1%).The main reasons for choosing the peripheral vein were lower risk of infection (87.0%), short-term treatment (82.6%), common transfusion (78.3%) and antibiotic treatment (47.8%).The main reasons for choosing central venous infusion were irritant drugs (82.6%), peripheral vascular puncture difficulty (69.6%), long-term infusion (65.2%) and hemodynamic monitor (56.5%). ConclusionsIt is difficult to establish a vascular access for critically ill patients.The ICU medical staffs are experienced to PIV, ACVC and PICC but not to Midline, TCVC and PORT.A comprehensive evaluation is essential to choose a suitable and reliable venous access device for critically ill patients.