Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Diagnostic accuracy of the Catheter Injection and Aspiration (CINAS) classification for assessing the function of totally implantable venous access devices

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Supportive Care in Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Intravenous catheters are used for the administration of intravenous therapy and for blood sampling. These devices are considered as well-functioning if both the injection and aspiration are easy. Malfunction is frequently observed and usually vaguely described as occlusion. We developed the CINAS, the Catheter Injection and Aspiration scheme. The CINAS is a catheter function classification tool, which classifies both the injection and the aspiration ability in a uniform way. Each CINAS class consists of a combination of an injection (IN) and an aspiration (AS) code: e.g. IN1AS1 is the CINAS class for a well-functioning catheter. In this series, we aimed to determine the accuracy of the CINAS class reported by nurses, after minimal training, versus a trained researcher, acting as a reference standard.

Methods

Catheter function was assessed during a standard blood sampling procedure through a totally implantable venous access device in a convenience sample of 150 oncology patients. One nurse researcher and 111 oncology nurses both scored the catheter function according to the CINAS classification scheme, independently. Concordance between the scores was calculated.

Results

For the 140 catheters scored as well-functioning (IN1AS1 score) by the researcher, 139 or 99.3 % (95 % confidence interval (CI) 96.1–99.9 %) were scored correctly by the nurse participants. Nine out of ten or 90 % (95 % CI 55.5–98.3 %) of malfunctioning catheters (researcher scores different from IN1AS1) were also identified as malfunctioning by the nurse participants and received exactly the same CINAS score in eight cases (80 %, 95 % CI 44.4–97.5 %). The overall accuracy of the CINAS scored by the nurse participants versus the researcher is (139 + 9)/150 or 98.7 % (95 % CI 95.3–99.8 %).

Conclusions

Nurse participants were able to classify the catheter function of totally implantable venous access devices with the CINAS accurately after a brief explanation about the classification options.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Goossens GA, Stas M, Jerome M, Moons P (2011) Systematic review: malfunction of totally implantable venous access devices in cancer patients. Support Care Cancer 19:883–898. doi:10.1007/s00520-011-1171-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Pikwer A, Baath L, Davidson B, Perstoft I, Akeson J (2008) The incidence and risk of central venous catheter malpositioning: a prospective cohort study in 1619 patients. Anaesth Intensive Care 36:30–37

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Skaff ER, Doucette S, McDiarmid S, Huebsch L, Sabloff M (2012) Vascular access devices in leukemia: a retrospective review amongst patients treated at the Ottawa Hospital with induction chemotherapy for acute leukemia. Leuk Lymphoma 53:1090–1095. doi:10.3109/10428194.2011.639879

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Cesaro S, Corro R, Pelosin A, Gamba P, Zadra N, Fusaro F, Pillon M, Cusinato R, Zampieri C, Magagna L, Cavaliere M, Tridello G, Zanon G, Zanesco L (2004) A prospective survey on incidence and outcome of Broviac/Hickman catheter-related complications in pediatric patients affected by hematological and oncological diseases. Ann Hematol 83:183–188. doi:10.1007/s00277-003-0796-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lim MY, Al-Kali A, Ashrani AA, Begna KH, Elliott MA, Hogan WJ, Hook CC, Kaufmann SH, Letendre L, Litzow MR, Patnaik MS, Pardanani A, Tefferi A, Wolanskyj AP, Grill DE, Pruthi RK (2013) Comparison of complication rates of Hickman (®) catheters versus peripherally inserted central catheters in patients with acute myeloid leukemia undergoing induction chemotherapy. Leuk Lymphoma 54:1263–1267. doi:10.3109/10428194.2012.742520

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Surov A, Wienke A, Carter JM, Stoevesandt D, Behrmann C, Spielmann RP, Werdan K, Buerke M (2009) Intravascular embolization of venous catheter—causes, clinical signs, and management: a systematic review. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 33:677–685. doi:10.1177/0148607109335121

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Stephens LC, Haire WD, Kotulak GD (1995) Are clinical signs accurate indicators of the cause of central venous catheter occlusion? JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 19:75–79

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Baskin JL, Pui CH, Reiss U, Wilimas JA, Metzger ML, Ribeiro RC, Howard SC (2009) Management of occlusion and thrombosis associated with long-term indwelling central venous catheters. Lancet 374:159–169

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Nakazawa N (2010) Infectious and thrombotic complications of central venous catheters. Semin Oncol Nurs 26:121–131

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Goossens GA, Vrebos M, De Wever I, Stas M (2004) Vacutainer filling time through subcutaneous venous access devices. J Vasc Access 5:154–160

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Verhamme P, Goossens G, Maleux G, Collen D, Stas M (2007) A dose-finding clinical trial of staphylokinase SY162 in patients with long-term venous access catheter thrombotic occlusion. J Thromb Thrombolysis 24:1–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Horne MK III, Mayo DJ (1997) Low-dose urokinase infusions to treat fibrinous obstruction of venous access devices in cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 15:2709–2714

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Frank JL, Garb JL, Halla B, Reed WP Jr (2001) Ionic implantation of silicone chronic venous access devices does not alter thrombotic complications: a double-blinded, randomized clinical trial. Surgery 129:547–551

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Carlo JT, Lamont JP, McCarty TM, Livingston S, Kuhn JA (2004) A prospective randomized trial demonstrating valved implantable ports have fewer complications and lower overall cost than nonvalved implantable ports. Am J Surg 188:722–727

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Stevens B, Barton SE, Brechbill M, Moenter S, Piel AL, Shankle D (2000) A randomized, prospective trial of conventional vascular ports vs. the vortex “clear-flow” reservoir port in adult oncology patients. JVAD 5(4):37–40

    Google Scholar 

  16. Johansson E, Bjorkholm M, Bjorvell H, Hast R, Takolander R, Olofsson P, Backman L, Weitzberg E, Engervall P (2004) Totally implantable subcutaneous port system versus central venous catheter placed before induction chemotherapy in patients with acute leukaemia—a randomized study. Support Care Cancer 12:99–105

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Goossens GA, Stas M, Moons P (2012) Management of functional complications of totally implantable venous access devices by an advanced practice nursing team: 5 years of clinical experience. Eur J Oncol Nurs S1462-3889(11):00173–6. doi:10.1016/j.ejon.2011.11.006

    Google Scholar 

  18. Sauerland C, Engelking C, Wickham R, Corbi D (2006) Vesicant extravasation part I: mechanisms, pathogenesis, and nursing care to reduce risk. Oncol Nurs Forum 33:1134–1141

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Goossens GA, Kerschaever I, Despierre E, Stas M (2013) Access of a fully rotated implantable port leads to extravasation. J Vasc Access 14:299–300. doi:10.5301/jva.5000136, C4F9D654-8A58-4478-A3A5-603E3616D9DB

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Infusion Nursing Standards of Practice (2011) J Infus Nurs 34:S1–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Perez Fidalgo JA, Garcia FL, Cervantes A, Margulies A, Vidall C, Roila F (2012) Management of chemotherapy extravasation: ESMO–EONS Clinical Practice Guidelines. Eur J Oncol Nurs 16:528–534

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Reitsma JB, Rutjes AW, Khan KS, Coomarasamy A, Bossuyt PM (2009) A review of solutions for diagnostic accuracy studies with an imperfect or missing reference standard. J Clin Epidemiol 62:797–806. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.02.005, S0895-4356(09)00063-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Nursing Centre of Excellence, University Hospitals Leuven, Herestraat 49, Leuven, Belgium

    G. A. Goossens, M. Jérôme & C. Janssens

  2. KU Leuven Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 35, Box 7001, 3000, Leuven, Belgium

    G. A. Goossens & P. Moons

  3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Antwerp University Hospital, Wilrijkstraat 10, 2650, Edegem, Belgium

    Y. De Waele

  4. Interuniversity Centre for Biostatistics and Statistical Bioinformatics, KU Leuven and Universiteit Hasselt, Kapucijnenvoer 35/2, 3000, Leuven, Belgium

    S. Fieuws

  5. Department of Surgical Oncology, University Hospitals Leuven, Herestraat 49, Leuven, Belgium

    M. Stas

  6. The Heart Centre, Copenhagen University Hospital, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark

    P. Moons

  7. The Institute of Health and Care Sciences, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden

    P. Moons

Authors
  1. G. A. Goossens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Y. De Waele
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. Jérôme
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. S. Fieuws
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. C. Janssens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. M. Stas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. P. Moons
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to G. A. Goossens.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Goossens, G.A., De Waele, Y., Jérôme, M. et al. Diagnostic accuracy of the Catheter Injection and Aspiration (CINAS) classification for assessing the function of totally implantable venous access devices. Support Care Cancer 24, 755–761 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-015-2839-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-015-2839-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation