Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Technical Report
  • Published:

Multi-purpose silastic dual-lumen central venous catheters for both collection and transplantation of hematopoietic progenitor cells

Bone Marrow Transplantation volume 25, pages 779–785 (2000)Cite this article

Abstract

Autologous peripheral blood progenitor cell (PBPC) transplantation frequently requires sequential placement and use of two separate central venous catheters: (1) a short-term, large-bore, stiff device inserted for leukapheresis, and after removal of that device, (2) a long-term, multi-lumen, flexible, Silastic catheter for administration of high-dose chemotherapy, re-infusion of hematopoietic cells, and intensive supportive care. We reviewed our recent experience with two dual-lumen, large-bore, Silastic multi-purpose (‘hybrid’) catheters, each of which can be used as a single device for both leukapheresis and long-term supportive care throughout the transplant process. Quinton-Raaf PermCath and Bard-Hickman hemodialysis/apheresis dual-lumen catheters were used as the sole venous access device in 112 consecutive patients who underwent autologous PBPC collection and transplantation. The catheter exit site was monitored three times a week, and lumen patency was assessed using clinical and radiologic techniques. Catheters were removed prematurely for persistent thrombus, positive blood cultures despite appropriate antibiotics, or mechanical dysfunction. There were no intra-operative or immediate post-operative complications relating to insertion. Thirty-two patients experienced catheter occlusion necessitating urokinase instillation. Persistent occlusive problems were noted in 16 patients, and in 10 patients the catheter had to be removed. Two exit site infections and 17 bacteremias occurred. Catheters had to be removed for persistent infection in two subjects and for mechanical problems in five others. Cost analysis comparing the hybrid catheters alone vs conventional devices revealed a charge of $4230 in patients with hybrid catheters vs $7530 in those requiring a temporary non-Silastic dialysis catheter in addition to a flexible, long-term Silastic catheter. Hybrid, Silastic, dual-lumen, large-bore central venous catheters are safe, cost-effective and convenient multi-purpose venous access devices that may be used in the setting of autologous PBPC collection and transplantation. The rate of thrombotic, infectious and mechanical complications appears comparable to other central venous access devices. Bone Marrow Transplantation (2000) 25, 779–785.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Armitage JO . Bone marrow transplantation New Engl J Med 1994 330: 827–838

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. To LB, Haylock DN, Simmons PJ, Juttner CA . The biology and clinical uses of blood stem cells Blood 1997 89: 2233–2258

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kessinger A . Is blood or bone marrow better? Stem Cells 1993 11: 290–295

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Körbling M, Fliedner T . The evolution of clinical peripheral blood stem cell transplantation Bone Marrow Transplant 1996 17: 675–678

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Nademanee A, Sniecinski I, Schmidt GM et al. High dose therapy followed by autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation for patients with Hodgkin's disease and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma using unprimed and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor-mobilized peripheral-blood stem cells J Clin Oncol 1994 12: 2176–2186

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Iacone A, Pierelli A, Quaglietta A et al. Survival after PBPC transplantation and comparison of engraftment speed with autologous and allogeneic marrow transplantation: results of a multicenter study Int J Artif Organs 1993 16: (S-5) 45–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Schmitz N, Linch DC, Dreger P et al. Randomized trial of filgrastim-mobilized peripheral blood progenitor cell transplantation versus autologous bone marrow transplantation in lymphoma patients Lancet 1996 347: 353–357

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Chao NJ, Schriber JR, Grimes K et al. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor ‘mobilized’ peripheral blood progenitor cells accelerate granulocyte and platelet recovery after high-dose chemotherapy Blood 1993 81: 2031–2035

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Ravagnani F, Siena S, Bregni M et al. Large-scale collection of circulating haematopoietic progenitors in cancer patients treated with high-dose cyclophosphamide and recombinant human GM-CSF Eur J Cancer 1990 26: 562–564

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Bensinger W, Appelbaum F, Rowley S et al. Factors that influence collection and engraftment of autologous peripheral-blood stem cells J Clin Oncol 1995 13: 2547–2555

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Hillyer CD . Large volume leukapheresis to maximize peripheral blood stem cell collection J Hematother 1993 2: 529–532

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Espinosa MTF, Fox R, Creger RJ, Lazarus HM . Microbiologic contamination of peripheral blood progenitor cells collected for hematopoietic cell transplantation Transfusion 1996 36: 789–793

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Schwella N, Zimmermann R, Heuft HG et al. Microbiologic contamination of peripheral blood stem cell autografts Vox Sang 1994 67: 32–35

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Schepers KG, Davis JM, Rowley SD . Incidence of bacterial contamination of bone marrow grafts Prog Clin Biol Res 1992 377: 379–384

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Raaf JH . Results from use of 826 vascular access devices in cancer patients Cancer 1985 55: 1312–1321

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Raaf JH . Administration of chemotherapeutic agents. Techniques and controversies Support Care Cancer 1994 2: 335–346

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Winter JN, Lazarus HM, Rademaker A et al. Phase I/II study of combined granulocyte colony-stimulating factor and granulocyte–macrophage colony-stimulating factor administration for the mobilization of hematopoietic progenitor cells J Clin Oncol 1996 14: 277–286

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Molineaux G, Pojda Z, Hampson IN et al. Transplantation potential of peripheral blood stem cells induced by granulocyte colony-stimulating factor Blood 1990 76: 2153–2158

    Google Scholar 

  19. Koc ON, Gerson SL, Cooper BW et al. High-dose cyclophosphamide (CTX) + G-CSF is a better progenitor cell mobilization regimen than G-CSF + GM-CSF when compared directly in the same patient in a randomized cross-over clinical trial Blood 1998 92: (Suppl. 1) 724a (Abstr. 2927)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Koc ON, Gerson SL, Phillips GL et al. Autologous CD34+ cell transplantation for patients with advanced lymphoma: effects of overnight storage on peripheral blood progenitor cell enrichment and engraftment Bone Marrow Transplant 1998 21: 337–343

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Stadtmauer E, Schenkein D, Miller K et al. GM-CSF mobilized peripheral blood progenitor cells (PSC) and GM-CSF post infusion after high-dose melphalan, cyclophosphamide and total body irradiation (TBI) for advanced relapsed multiple myeloma Blood 1993 82: 264a (Abstr. 1043)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Antman K, Ayash L, Elias A et al. A phase II study of high-dose cyclophosphamide, thiotepa, and carboplatin with autologous marrow support in women with measurable advanced breast cancer responding to standard-dose therapy J Clin Oncol 1992 10: 102–110

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Cassileth PA, Andersen J, Lazarus HM et al. Autologous bone marrow transplant in acute myeloid leukemia in first remission J Clin Oncol 1993 11: 314–319

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Fields KK, Elfenbein GJ, Lazarus HM et al. Maximum tolerated doses of ifosfamide, carboplatin, and etoposide given over six days followed by autologous stem cell rescue: toxicity profile J Clin Oncol 1995 13: 323–332

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Lazarus HM, Crilley P, Ciobanu R et al. High-dose carmustine, etoposide, and cisplatin and autologous bone marrow transplantation for relapsed and refractory lymphoma J Clin Oncol 1992 10: 1682–1689

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Stellato TA, Gauderer MWL, Lazarus HM, Herzig RH . Percutaneous silastic catheter insertion in patients with thrombocytopenia Cancer 1985 56: 2691–2693

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Raaf JH . Two Broviac catheters for intensive long term support of patients with cancer Surg Gynecol Obstet 1984 158: 173–176

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Raaf JH, Heil D . Open insertion of right atrial catheters through the jugular veins Surg Gynecol Obstet 1993 77: 295–298

    Google Scholar 

  29. Lazarus HM, Creger RJ, Bloom AD, Shenk R . Percutaneous femoral central venous catheter placement in patients undergoing bone marrow transplantation Surg Gynecol Obstet 1990 170: 403–406

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Raaf JH . Vascular access, catheter technology, and infusion pumps. In: Moossa AR, Schimpff SC, Robson MC (eds) Comprehensive Textbook of Oncology Williams & Wilkins: Baltimore 1991 583–589

    Google Scholar 

  31. Hickman RO, Buckner CD, Clift RA et al. A modified right atrial catheter for access to the venous system in marrow transplant recipients Surg Gynecol Obstet 1979 148: 871–875

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Broviac JW, Cole JJ, Scribner BH . A silicone rubber atrial catheter for prolonged parenteral alimentation Surg Gynecol Obstet 1973 136: 602–606

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Kincaid EH, Davis PW, Chang MC et al. ‘Blind’ placement of long-term central venous access devices: report of 589 consecutive procedures Am Surg 1999 65: 520–524

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Wenzel RP, Edmond MB . The evolving technology of venous access New Engl J Med 1999 340: 48–50

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Leibundgut K, Muller C, Muller K et al. Tunneled, double lumen Broviac catheters are useful, efficient and safe in children undergoing peripheral blood progenitor cell harvesting and transplantation Bone Marrow Transplant 1996 17: 663–667

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Stephens LC, Haire WD, Schmit-Pokorny K et al. Granulocyte–macrophage colony-stimulating factor: high incidence of apheresis catheter thrombosis during peripheral stem cell collection Bone Marrow Transplant 1993 11: 51–54

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Haire WD, Edney JA, Landmark JD, Kessinger A . Thrombotic complications of subclavian apheresis catheters: prevention with heparin infusion J Clin Apher 1990 5: 188–191

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Alegre A, Requena MJ, Fernandez-Villalta MJ et al. Quinton-Mahurkar catheter as short-term central venous access for PBSC collection: single-center experience of 370 apheresis in 110 patients Bone Marrow Transplant 1996 18: 865–869

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Goldberg SL, Mangan KF, Klump TR et al. Complications of peripheral blood stem cell harvesting: review of 554 PBSC leukaphereses J Hematother 1995 4: 85–90

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Meisenberg BR, Callaghan M, Sloan C et al. Complications associated with central venous catheters used for the collection of peripheral blood progenitor cells to support high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell rescue Support Care Cancer 1997 5: 223–227

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Thompson L . Central venous catheters for apheresis access J Clin Apher 1992 7: 154–157

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Volkow P, Tellez O, Vazquez C et al. A single, double lumen high-flow catheter for patients undergoing peripheral blood stem cell transplantation. Experience at the National Cancer Institute in Mexico Bone Marrow Transplant 1997 20: 779–783

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Barzaghi A, Dell'Orto M, Rovelli A et al. Central venous catheter clots: incidence, clinical significance and catheter care in patients with hematologic malignancies Ped Hematol Oncol 1995 12: 243–250

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Newman KA, Reed WP, Schimpff SC et al. Hickman catheters in association with intensive cancer chemotherapy Support Care Cancer 1993 1: 92–97

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Ray S, Stacey R, Imrie M, Filshie J . A review of 560 Hickman catheter insertions Anesthesia 1996 51: 981–985

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Köksoy C, Kuzu A, Erden I, Akkaya A . The risk factors in central venous catheter-related thrombosis Aust NZ J Surg 1995 65: 796–798

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Biagi E, Arrigo C, Dell'Orto MG et al. Mechanical and infective central venous catheter-related complications: a prospective non-randomized study using Hickman and Groshong catheters in children with hematological malignancies Support Care Cancer 1997 5: 228–233

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Nightingale CE, Norman A, Cunningham D et al. A prospective analysis of 949 long-term central venous access catheters for ambulatory chemotherapy in patients with gastrointestinal malignancy Eur J Cancer 1997 33: 398–403

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Hahn U, Goldschmidt H, Salwender H et al. Large-bore central venous catheters for the collection of peripheral blood stem cells J Clin Apher 1995 10: 12–16

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Reik RA, Noto TA, Fernandez HF . Safety of large-volume leukapheresis for collection of peripheral blood progenitor cells J Clin Apher 1997 12: 10–13

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Madero L, Díaz MA, Benito A et al. Non-tunneled catheters for the collection and transplantation of peripheral blood stem cells in children Bone Marrow Transplant 1997 20: 53–56

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Madero L, Ruano D, Villa M et al. Non-tunneled catheters in children undergoing bone marrow transplantation Bone Marrow Transplant 1996 17: 87–89

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Haire WD, Lieberman RP, Lund GB et al. Thrombotic complications of silicone rubber catheters during autologous marrow and peripheral stem cell transplantation: prospective comparison of Hickman and Groshong catheters Bone Marrow Transplant 1991 7: 57–59

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Conlan MG, Haire WD, Lieberman RP et al. Catheter-related thrombosis in patients with refractory lymphoma undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation Bone Marrow Transplant 1991 7: 235–240

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Uderzo C, D'Angelo P, Rizzari C et al. Central venous catheter-related complications after bone marrow transplantation in children with hematological malignancies Bone Marrow Transplant 1992 9: 113–117

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Moosa HH, Julian TB, Rosenfeld CS, Shadduck RK . Complications of indwelling central venous catheters in bone marrow transplant recipients Surg Gynecol Obstet 1991 172: 275–279

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Darouiche RO, Raad ID, Heard SO et al. A comparison of two antimicrobial impregnated central venous catheters New Engl J Med 1999 340: 1–8

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Maki DG, Stolz SM, Wheeler S et al. Prevention of central venous catheter-related bloodstream infection by use of an antiseptic-impregnated catheter Ann Intern Med 1997 128: 257–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Raad I, Darouiche R, Dupuis J et al. Central venous catheters coated with minocycline and rifampin for the prevention of catheter-related colonization and bloodstream infections. A randomized, double-blind trial. The Texas Medical Center Catheter Study Group Ann Intern Med 1997 127: 267–274

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Stuart L Goldberg, MD for helpful suggestions. This project was supported, in part, by Public Health Service grants M01RR00080 and P30CA43703 from the National Institutes of Health, the National Cancer Institute and the Department of Health and Human Services.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medicine, University Hospitals of Cleveland, Cleveland, OH, USA

    HM Lazarus & S Trehan

  2. Ireland Cancer Center of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA

    HM Lazarus, S Trehan, R Miller, RM Fox, RJ Creger & JH Raaf

  3. Department of Surgery, University Hospitals of Cleveland, Cleveland, OH, USA

    JH Raaf

  4. Surgical Service of the VA Medical Center, Cleveland, OH, USA

    JH Raaf

Authors
  1. HM Lazarus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S Trehan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. R Miller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. RM Fox
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. RJ Creger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. JH Raaf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lazarus, H., Trehan, S., Miller, R. et al. Multi-purpose silastic dual-lumen central venous catheters for both collection and transplantation of hematopoietic progenitor cells. Bone Marrow Transplant 25, 779–785 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bmt.1702225

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bmt.1702225

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links