Abstract P2-16-09: Wound Healing and Catheter Thrombosis after Implantable Venous Access Device Placement in 266 Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients Treated with Bevacizumab
Authors: I Kriegel, V Fourchotte, PH Cottu, I Fromantin, RJ Salmon, M. Esteve
Journal: Cancer Research (2010)

Abstract OBJECTIVES: To determine in a population of metastatic breast cancer the incidence of wound dehiscence after placement of an implantable venous access device (VAD) in patients treated with bevacizumab, observe the optimum interval between placement and initiation of treatment and study the risk of catheter thrombosis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 1/1/2007 and 31/12/2009, this study enrolled all VADs placed by 14 anesthetists: 273 VADs in patients treated by bevacizumab for metastatic breast cancer and 4196 VADs in patients not treated by bevacizumab. The medical charts of the 266 metastatic breast cancer patients treated with bevacizumab between 1/1/2007 and 31/12/2009 were reviewed up until 1/3/2010. A VAD was placed in all patients (goal standard in our institution). 7 patients in whom the VAD was inserted in another institution were excluded from this study. The VAD was removed and replaced in 14 patients with continuation of bevacizumab after replacement of the VAD RESULTS: 1 patient was lost to follow-up. Thirteen cases of wound dehiscence occurred in 12 patients requiring removal of the VAD (5,1 %). All cases of dehiscence occurred when bevacizumab was administered during the first 7 days after VAD placement. Bevacizumab therapy was initiated less than 7 days after VAD placement in 150 cases, requiring removal of the device in 12 patients (8.6%). The risk of dehiscence was the same from 0 to 7 days. In parallel, the VAD wound dehiscence rate in patients not receiving bevacizumab was 8/4,197 (0.19%) (Fisher's test significant, P&amp;lt;0.001). No risk factors were identified: anesthetists, learning curves, irradiated patients. In particular, 70 ports were placed by juniors with 6 dehiscences, 80 ports by seniors with 7 dehiscences. VAD thrombosis occurred in 4 patients (1,5 %) 3, 5, 7 and 22 months after VAD placement. In all these cases, VAD placement was at the time of initiation of bevacizumab therapy. In parallel, VAD thrombosis occurred in 51/4,197 (1.2%) patients not receiving bevacizumab (Fisher's test not significant; p=0.43). The other indications for VAD removal were end of treatment: 3 (0,91 %), mechanical problem other than thrombosis: 6 (1,8 %), local infection without wound dehiscence: 1 (0,31%). Bevacizumab was permanently discontinued in 5 patients related to wound dehiscence and in 1 patient due to extensive skin necrosis. Bevacizumab was continued in the other 7 patients. CONCLUSION: The risk of VAD thrombosis does not require any particular primary prevention. These data suggest the need to observe an interval of at least 7 days between VAD placement and initiation of bevacizumab therapy. Poor healing is a major complication of VAD, interfering with continuation of chemotherapy and the patient's subsequent management, resulting in a real risk of loss of chance. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2010;70(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P2-16-09.