Treatment of Canine Multicentric Lymphoma Through Vascular Access Port Versus Peripheral Venous Catheter

Brunna de Souza Barni, José Ricardo Herrera Becerra, Silvana Bellini Vidor, Mariana Pires de Oliveira, Luciane Cristina Vieira, Calvin Braga Gnoatto, Stella de Faria Valle, Cristiano Gomes, Giordano Cabral Gianotti, Emerson Antonio Contesini


Background: Vascular access port (VAP) was developed for the administration of chemotherapeutic agents, minimizing local drug reactions and complications associated with migration of peripheral venous catheter (PVC) in humans. The device is widely used in human oncology and has gained importance in veterinary oncology, especially in long treatment regimens, as in the case of canine lymphoma. VAP favors therapy and the animals’ quality of life. The aim of this study was to describe the use of VAP in dogs, comparing to PVC access, during canine lymphoma chemotherapeutic treatment. 

Materials, Methods & Results: Eleven dogs with multicentric lymphoma which required chemotherapy were selected for the study. The dogs were randomly allocated to two groups with five and six animals, and each group received the chemotherapy protocol through the PVC (n= 5) or VAP (n= 6). For the sake of standardization, assessments were made whenever the dogs received vincristine sulfate, despite the use of the infusion system in all sessions of the Madison-Wisconsin protocol. A VAP was implanted into the right external jugular vein of six dogs under inhalational anesthesia, using the Seldinger technique. Systolic blood pressure (SBP) levels and handling time during chemotherapy sessions were compared in both groups in three time periods during the procedures: 10 min after arrival to each chemotherapy (P1); immediately after placement of the PVC or puncture of the VAP reservoir (P2); and at the end of chemotherapy (P3). The arithmetic mean of five consecutive assessments was used in each time period. In the chemotherapy sessions, the mean of SBP variation decreased statistically significant in the VAP group compared to PVC group. SBP decreased from P1 to P2 and from P1 to P3 in all sessions (S1, S2, and S3) in the VAP group, and increased in the PVC group. The handling time of VAP group was 110.6 ± 8.4 s, compared to 219.2 ± 24.7 s (mean ± standard error) in the PVC group, showing statistically significant difference (P < 0.001). VAP surgical implantation time averaged 37 min, decreasing gradually from the first (55 min) to the last patient (21 min).

Discussion: SBP levels suggest that the VAP group was calmer from the beginning to the end of the sessions, showed lower SBP levels, and required shorter handling time than did the PVC group. Blood pressure is one of the most objective ways to assess welfare or stress in dogs. When dog feels threatened or scared, its body automatically enters a state of emergency and, among several changes, blood pressure increases. VAP surgical implantation in dogs have easy learning, as previously described, proven by implantation time progressive reduction. The Seldinger technique is the method of choice for catheter implantation in humans. Dissection of the jugular vein is an alternative, however, the technique with a single incision and venipuncture is less invasive than its modifications. The jugular vein was used because is the site of choice for central accesses in veterinary practice, with a shorter path to the right atrium and smaller rates of catheter misplacement, reducing the risk of pneumothorax, venous thrombosis, and pinch-off syndrome. VAP surgical implantation in dogs have easy learning, proven by the implantation time progressive reduction. The study confirmed that VAPpromoted animal welfare, shortened chemotherapy sessions, and caused less discomfort to dogs treated for multicentric lymphoma, as indicated by the reduction in SBP, when compared to the PVC group.

Full Text:



Araújo C.C., Lima M.C. & Falbo G.H. 2007. Percutaneous subclavian central venous catheterization in children and adolescents: success, complications and related factors. Jornal de Pediatria. 83(1): 64-70.

Aubert I., Abrams-Ogg A.C.G., Sylvestre A.M., Dyson D.H., Allen D.G. & Johnstone I.B. 2011. The use of vascular access ports for blood collection in feline blood donors. Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research. 75(1): 25-34.

Bartoli C.R., Okabe K., Akiyama I., Coull B. & Godleski J.J. 2008. Repeat microsphere delivery for serial measurement of regional blood perfusion in the chronically instrumented conscious canine. Journal of Surgery Research. 145(1): 135-141.

Bryson V., Fox L.E. & Crum H. 2005. Long-term totally implantable venous access ports in dogs and cats receiving chemotherapy. Veterinary Comparative Oncology. 3(1): 37.

Cahalane A.K., Rassnick K.M. & Flanders J.A. 2007. Use of vascular access ports in femoral veins of dogs and cats with cancer. Journal of American Veterinary Medical Association. 231(9): 1354-1360.

Cápua M.L.B., Coleta F.E.D., Canesin A.P.M.N., Godoy A.V., Calazans S.G., Miotto M.R., Daleck C.R. & Santana A.E. 2011. Canine lymphoma: clinical and hematological aspects and treatment with the Madison-Wisconsin protocol. Ciência Rural. 41(7): 1245-1251.

Cardoso M.J.L., Machado L.H.A., Moutinho F.Q. & Padovani C.R. 2004. Clinical signs of the canine lymphoma. Archives of Veterinary Science. 9(2): 19-24.

Claude A.K., Riedesel D.H. & Riedesel E.A. 2010. Electrocardiography-guided and retrospective analysis of central venous catheter placement in the dog. Veterinary Anaesthesia and Analgesia. 37(2): 97-105.

Dalton M.J. 1985. The vascular access port. Laboratory Animals. 14(7): 21-30.

Diniz P.P.V.P., Wood M., Maggi R.G., Sontakke S., Stepnik M. & Breitschwerdt E.B. 2009. Co-isolation of Bartonella henselae and Bartonella vinsonii subsp. berkhoffii from blood, joint and subcutaneous seroma fluids from two naturally infected dogs. Veterinary Microbiology. 138(3-4): 368-372.

Farrow H.A., Rand J.S., Burgess D.M., Coradini M. & Vankan D.M. 2013. Jugular vascular access port implantation for frequent, long-term blood sampling in cats: methodology, assessment, and comparison with jugular catheters. Research of Veterinary Sciences. 95(2): 681-686.

Froehner Júnior I. 2005. Cateteres venosos centrais totalmente implantáveis para quimioterapia em 100 pacientes portadores de neoplasia maligna. 75f. Florianópolis, SC. Trabalho de Conclusão de Curso (Graduação em Medicina), Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina.

Graham M.L., Rieke E.F., Wijkstrom M., Dunning M., Aasheim T.C., Graczyk M.J., Pilon K.J. & Hering B.J. 2008. Risk factors associated with surgical site infection and the development of short-term complications in macaques undergoing indwelling vascular access port placement. Journal of Medical Primatology. 37(4): 202-209.

Guérios S.D., Silva D.M., Souza C.H.M. & Bacon N.J. 2015. Surgical placement and management of jugular vascular access ports in dogs and cats: description of technique. Revista Colombiana de Ciencias Pecuarias. 28(3): 265-271.

Jesus P.O.B, Freitas M.V., Ferreira F.S. & Silva J.F.S. 2010. Central venous access in dogs and cats - a review. Medvep - Revista Científica de Medicina Veterinária. 8(27): 736-741.

Massari F. & Romanelli G. 2008. Clinical experience with subcutaneous implant systems for intravenous therapies. Veterinaria (Cremona). 22(5): 43-50.

Melchert A., Meneses A.M.C., Brant J.R.A.C., Balbi A.L., Caramori J. & Barretti P. 2008. Hemodialysis vascular access with temporary double-lumen catheter in dogs with acute renal failure. Ciência Rural. 38(4): 1010-1016.

Nies K.S., Kruitwagen H.S., Straten G., Bruggen L.W.L., Robben J.H., Schotanus B.A., Akkerdaas I. & Kummelin A. 2019. Innovative application of an implantable venous access system in the portal vein: technique, results and complications in three dogs. BMC Veterinary Research. 15(1): 240.

Nocito A., Wildi S., Rufibach K., Clavien P.A. & Weber M. 2009. Randomized clinical trial comparing venous cutdown with the Seldinger technique for placement of implantable venous access ports. British Journal of Surgery. 96(10): 1129-1134.

Oliveira S.C.V., Steckert J.S., Russi R.F & Steckert Filho A. 2008. Totally implantable catheter in cancer patients: 178 consecutive cases analysis. Arquivos Catarinenses de Medicina. 37(1): 43-48.

Ortolani L., Gasparino R.C. & Traldi M.C. 2013. Complications associated with the use of the indwelling catheter in children and adolescents. Revista Brasileira de Cancerologia. 59(1): 51-56.

Prada I.L.S., Massone F., Cais A., Costa P.E.M. & Seneda M.M. 2002. Methodological and neurofunctional bases for the evaluation of pain / suffering presence in animals. Revista de Educação Continuada em Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia do CRMV-SP. 5(1): 1-13.

Saccò M., Meschi M., Regolisti G., Detrenis S., Bianchi L., Bartonelli M., Pioli S., Magnano A., Spagnoli F., Giuri P.G., Fiaccadori E. & Caiazza A. 2013. The relationship between blood pressure and pain. Journal of Clinical Hypertension (Greenwich). 15(8): 600-605.

Santos E.R., Rosa N.S., Barni B.S., Oliveira M.P., Venâncio J.S., Contesini E.A., Muccillo M.S. & Driemeier D. 2016. Implant of Port-o-Cath for antineoplastic chemotherapy in a canine: case report. Arquivo Brasileiro de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia. 68(6): 1453-1457.

Silva F.S. & Campos R.G. 2009. Complications of the use of the totally implantable catheter in oncological patients: an integrative review. Cogitare enfermagem. 14(1): 159-164.

Swindle M.M., Nolan T., Jacobson A., Wolf P., Dalton M.J. & Smith A.C. 2005. Vascular access port (VAP) usage in large animal species. Journal of American Association of Laboratory Animal Sciences. 44(3): 7-17.

Tebaldi M., Lourenço M.L.G., Machado L.H.A., Sudano M.J. & Carvalho L.R. 2012. Study of blood pressure by the indirect oscillometric method (petmap®) in domestic unanesthetized dogs. Arquivo Brasileiro de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia. 64(6): 1456-1464.

Tebaldi M., Machado L.H.A. & Lourenço M.L.G. 2015. Blood pressure in dogs: a review. Veterinária e Zootecnia. 22(2): 198-208.

Valentini F., Fassone F., Pozzebon A., Gavazza A. & Lubas G. 2013. Use of totally implantable vascular access port with mini-invasive Seldinger technique in 12 dogs undergoing chemotherapy. Research in Veterinary Sciences. 94(1): 152-157.

Withrow S.J. 2013. Why worry about cancer in pets? In: Small Animal Clinical Oncology. New York: Elsevier Saunders, pp.xv-xvii.

Yamamoto K.C. M., Silva E.Y.T., Costa K.N., Souza M.S., Silva M.L.M., Albuquerque V.B., Pinheiro D.M., Bernabé D.G. & Oliva V.N.L.S. 2012. Physiological and behavioral assessment in dogs used in Animal-Assisted Therapy (ATT). Arquivo Brasileiro de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia. 64(3): 568-576.


Copyright (c) 2020 Brunna de Souza Barni, José Ricardo Herrera Becerra, Silvana Bellini Vidor, Mariana Pires de Oliveira, Luciane Cristina Vieira, Calvin Braga Gnoatto, Stella de Faria Valle, Cristiano Gomes, Giordano Cabral Gianotti, Emerson Antonio Contesini

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.