Internal jugular vein versus subclavian vein as the percutaneous insertion site for totally implantable venous access devices

Wu S, Huang J, Jiang Z, et al. Internal jugular vein versus subclavian vein as the percutaneous insertion site for totally implantable venous access devices: a meta-analysis of comparative studies. BMC Cancer. 2016 Sep 22;16(1):747. Free full-text.

Results: Twelve studies including 3905 patients published between 2008 and 2015, were included. Our meta-analysis showed that incidences of TIVAD-related infections (odds ratio [OR] 0.71, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.48-1.04, P = 0.081) and catheter-related thrombotic complications (OR 0.76, 95 % CI 0.38-1.51, P = 0.433) were not significantly different between the two groups. However, compared with SCV, IJV was associated with reduced risks of total major mechanical complications (OR 0.38, 95 % CI 0.24-0.61, P < 0.001). More specifically, catheter dislocation (OR 0.43, 95 % CI 0.22-0.84, P = 0.013) and malfunction (OR 0.42, 95 % CI 0.28-0.62, P < 0.001) were more prevalent in the SCV than in the IJV group; however, the risk of catheter fracture (OR 0.47, 95 % CI 0.21-1.05, P = 0.065) were not significantly different between the two groups. Sensitivity analyses using fixed-effects models showed a decreased risk of catheter fracture in the IJV group.

Conclusion: The IJV seems to be a safer alternative to the SCV with lower risks of total major mechanical complications, catheter dislocation, and malfunction. However, a large-scale and well-designed RCT comparing the complications of each access site is warranted before the IJV site can be unequivocally recommended as a first choice for percutaneous implantation of a TIVAD.


Nagasawa Y, Shimizu T, Sonoda H, et al. A comparison of outcomes and complications of totally implantable access port through the internal jugular vein versus the subclavian vein. Int Surg. 2014 Mar-Apr;99(2):182-8. Free full-text.


See also:

Aribaş BK, Arda K, Aribaş O, et al. Comparison of subcutaneous central venous port via jugular and subclavian access in 347 patients at a single center. Exp Ther Med. 2012 Oct;4(4):675-680. doi: 10.3892/etm.2012.649. Epub 2012 Jul 30.

Plumhans C, Mahnken AH, Ocklenburg C, et al. Jugular versus subclavian totally implantable access ports: catheter position, complications and intrainterventional pain perception. Eur J Radiol. 2011 Sep;79(3):338-42. Full-text for Emory users.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s