ACR Appropriateness Criteria ® Radiologic Management of Central Venous Access

Whether the GFR measured by renal scintigraphy under non-steady state conditions for critically ill patients with AKI can be used as a predictive parameter for clinical events

“…After intravenous hydration with 300-500 mL of fluid (dextrose; 5% glucose or 0.9% sodium chloride) 30 min, the patency of the catheter in the PICC/CVC system is checked by 10 mL saline solution in a 10-mL syringe. Then, a bolus injection of radiopharmaceutical via PICC or CVC is done, immediately following and flushing with 10-20 mL normal saline or heparin (100 U) sodium solution using the "push-pause" technique for the lock of the system depositing with positive pressure [4], while a standard 20/30-min dynamic renal scintigraphy is performed.…”

Perioperative and Postoperative Complications of Supraclavicular, Ultrasound-Guided, Totally Implantable Venous Access Port via the Brachiocephalic Vein in Adult Patients: A Retrospective Multicentre Study

“…[2][3][4][5] Compared with the peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) or central venous catheter (CVC), the TIVAP has many advantages and is more readily accepted by patients because of its long service life, ease of nursing, and lack of impact on the quality of life. [6][7][8][9][10][11][12] TIVAP has been widely used in the clinic in recent years, and clinicians have gradually observed a series of clinical complications, such as arterial puncture, pneumothorax, thrombosis, and catheter rupture. 6 These complications not only cause additional pain to patients but also delay treatment and even endanger patients' lives.…”

A case of unexpected peripherally inserted central catheter removal from a colorectal cancer patient with cetuximab-induced skin toxicity and contact dermatitis at the peripherally inserted central catheter insertion site: Should we recommend the patient to choose subcutaneous port preferentially?

“…Obtaining central venous access is one of the most commonly performed procedures in hospital settings. 1 However, there are very limited data to guide clinicians when selecting a device for metastatic colorectal cancer patients who received cetuximab. In 2011, the Principles of Subcutaneous Port Placement 2 considered the following: evaluation of prior cross-sectional imaging, evidence of coagulopathy or systemic infection, and subcutaneous port placement in patients with malignancy is whether the patient has recently finished or is due to start treatment with bevacizumab.…”

“…In 2017, the American College of Radiology developed a guideline about Appropriateness Criteria Radiologic Management of Central Venous Access Radiology. 1 The guideline included the Appropriateness Category of all kinds of multiple central venous devices, such as long-term total parenteral nutrition, intermittent intravenous antibiotics, the treatment of recurrent sickle cell crisis, chronic kidney disease, head and neck surgery and chemotherapy, but did not include suggestion for cetuximab. Until now, there were no case reports about the safety of central venous access of metastatic colorectal cancer patients with cetuximab-induced skin toxicity and contact dermatitis at the peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) insertion site.…”