Key result
Ultrasound-guided axillary vein access for totally implantable venous access ports significantly increased the odds of ideal early postoperative comfort (aOR 4.48) compared to internal jugular vein access in breast cancer patients.
Why the study?
Comparative evidence on patient-reported outcomes for the tunnel-less axillary vein approach versus the standard internal jugular vein approach for totally implantable venous access port implantation remained limited.
Does ultrasound-guided axillary vein access improve postoperative comfort, cosmetic outcomes, and satisfaction compared to internal jugular vein access for TIVAP implantation in breast cancer patients?
Cohort (n=208)
Single-blind
No
Does ultrasound-guided axillary vein access improve postoperative comfort, cosmetic outcomes, and satisfaction compared to internal jugular vein access for TIVAP implantation in breast cancer patients?
Odds Ratio: 4.48 (95% CI 2.04–9.85)
Absolute Event Rate: 90.2% vs 67.9%
Absolute Risk Reduction: 22.3%
p-value: p=0.0002
Ultrasound-guided axillary vein access for TIVAP implantation provides superior early postoperative comfort, long-term cosmetic results, and patient satisfaction compared to the internal jugular vein approach in breast cancer patients, without increasing complication risks.
AxV may improve comfort and satisfaction after TIVAP implantation; leaves open confirmation in randomized trials before practice change.
Background: Patient-centered venous access is critical in breast cancer supportive care. While the tunnel-less axillary vein (AxV) approach for totally implantable venous access port (TIVAP) implantation may improve patient experience, comparative evidence on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) against the standard internal jugular vein (IJV) approach remains limited. Methods: This single-center retrospective cohort study compared ultrasound-guided IJV (n = 106) versus AxV (n = 102) TIVAP implantation in breast cancer patients (September 2020-February 2025). Primary outcomes included postoperative comfort (assessed at 1 day) and cosmetic outcome and satisfaction (assessed at 6 months). Complications were monitored for 6 months. Group comparisons utilized chi-square/Fisher's exact tests. To control for potential confounders, multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed, adjusting for age, body mass index, and implantation side. Complications were monitored for 6 months. Results: The AxV approach significantly enhanced early postoperative comfort, with a higher rate of no discomfort (Grade 0: 72.5% vs. 59.4%, p = 0.032). At 6 months, the AxV approach demonstrated superior, favorable cosmetic outcomes (Grades 1-2: 93.1% vs. 67.9%, p < 0.001) and higher overall satisfaction (94.1% vs. 85.8%, p = 0.039). Multivariable analysis confirmed the AxV approach as an independent predictor for ideal comfort [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 4.48, p = 0.0002], favorable cosmetic outcome (aOR = 6.22, p < 0.001), and overall satisfaction (aOR = 3.07, p = 0.033). More AxV patients would choose the port again (83.3% vs. 72.6%, p = 0.045). The overall complication rates were comparable between groups [4.8%, 0.269/1,000 central line-days (CD) vs. 4.9%, 0.279/1,000 CD; p = 0.957]. Conclusion: For breast cancer patients, the ultrasound-guided AxV approach for TIVAP provides superior early postoperative comfort, long-term cosmetic results, and patient satisfaction without increasing early complication risks, representing a significant patient-centered advancement in venous access.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
He et al. (2025) conducted a cohort in Breast cancer requiring totally implantable venous access port (TIVAP) (n=208). Ultrasound-guided axillary vein (AxV) access vs. Ultrasound-guided internal jugular vein (IJV) access was evaluated on Ideal postoperative comfort (Grades 0-1) at 1 day (aOR 4.48, 95% CI 2.04-9.85, p=0.0002). Ultrasound-guided axillary vein access for totally implantable venous access ports significantly increased the odds of ideal early postoperative comfort (aOR 4.48) compared to internal jugular vein access in breast cancer patients.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: