Literature DB >> 10821892

Peripheral venous access ports: outcomes analysis in 109 patients.

L J Bodner1, J L Nosher, K M Patel, R L Siegel, R Biswal, C E Gribbin, R Tokarz.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To perform a retrospective outcomes analysis of central venous catheters with peripheral venous access ports, with comparison to published data.
METHODS: One hundred and twelve central venous catheters with peripherally placed access ports were placed under sonographic guidance in 109 patients over a 4-year period. Ports were placed for the administration of chemotherapy, hyperalimentation, long-term antibiotic therapy, gamma-globulin therapy, and frequent blood sampling. A vein in the upper arm was accessed in each case and the catheter was passed to the superior vena cava or right atrium. Povidone iodine skin preparation was used in the first 65 port insertions. A combination of Iodophor solution and povidone iodine solution was used in the last 47 port insertions. Forty patients received low-dose (1 mg) warfarin sodium beginning the day after port insertion. Three patients received higher doses of warfarin sodium for preexistent venous thrombosis. Catheter performance and complications were assessed and compared with published data.
RESULTS: Access into the basilic or brachial veins was obtained in all cases. Ports remained functional for a total of 28,936 patient days. The port functioned in 50% of patients until completion of therapy, or the patient's expiration. Ports were removed prior to completion of therapy in 18% of patients. Eleven patients (9.9% of ports placed) suffered an infectious complication (0.38 per thousand catheter-days)-in nine, at the port implantation site, in two along the catheter. In all 11 instances the port was removed. Port pocket infection in the early postoperative period occurred in three patients (4.7%) receiving a Betadine prep vs two patients (4.2%) receiving a standard O.R. prep. This difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.9). Venous thrombosis occurred in three patients (6.8%) receiving warfarin sodium and in two patients (3%) not receiving warfarin sodium. This difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.6). Aspiration occlusion occurred in 13 patients (11.7%). Intracatheter urokinase was infused in eight of these patients and successfully restored catheter function in all but two instances. These complication rates are comparable to or better than those reported with chest ports.
CONCLUSION: Peripheral ports for long-term central venous access placed by interventional radiologists in the interventional radiology suite are as safe and as effective as chest ports.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10821892     DOI: 10.1007/s002700010041

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol        ISSN: 0174-1551            Impact factor:   2.740


  14 in total

1.  Retention of lepirudin at the tip of a silicone catheter: a better catheter flush solution?

Authors:  McDonald K Horne; Elizabeth Inkellis
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2004-02-13       Impact factor: 3.603

2.  Atypical pulmonary embolism of port catheter fragments in oncology patients.

Authors:  Alexey Surov; Karin Jordan; Michael Buerke; Monica Persing; Bettina Wollschlaeger; Curd Behrmann
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2006-01-25       Impact factor: 3.603

3.  [How should urologists perform implantation of subcutaneous central venous port systems? A single center experience of 347 cases].

Authors:  M Schenck; W Michels-Oswald; S Tschirdewahn; H Rübben; F Vom Dorp; A Rose; A Panic; C Niedworok; R Rossi
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 0.639

4.  Short-term and long-term outcome of radiological-guided insertion of central venous access port devices implanted at the forearm: a retrospective monocenter analysis in 1704 patients.

Authors:  Moritz Wildgruber; Sebastian Borgmeyer; Bernhard Haller; Heike Jansen; Jochen Gaa; Marion Kiechle; Reinhard Meier; Johannes Ettl; Hermann Berger
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-09-20       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 5.  Systematic review: malfunction of totally implantable venous access devices in cancer patients.

Authors:  Godelieve Alice Goossens; Marguerite Stas; Martine Jérôme; Philip Moons
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2011-05-10       Impact factor: 3.603

6.  Central venous port implantations via the cephalic vein applying an intravasal electrographic control of the catheter tip position: a single-center experience of 316 cases.

Authors:  Marcus Schenck; Tim Schneider; Herbert Rübben; Andreas Eisenhardt
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2011-08-28       Impact factor: 4.226

7.  Percutaneous retrieval of intravascular venous foreign bodies in children.

Authors:  Anne Marie Cahill; Deddeh Ballah; Paula Hernandez; Lucia Fontalvo
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2011-12-17

8.  Long-term outcomes of peripheral arm ports implanted in patients with colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Junichiro Kawamura; Satoshi Nagayama; Akinari Nomura; Atsushi Itami; Hiroshi Okabe; Seiji Sato; Go Watanabe; Yoshiharu Sakai
Journal:  Int J Clin Oncol       Date:  2008-08-15       Impact factor: 3.402

9.  Comparison of the Quality of Life of Patients with Breast or Colon Cancer with an Arm Vein Port (TIVAD) Versus a Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter (PICC).

Authors:  Brent Burbridge; Hyun Lim; Lynn Dwernychuk; Ha Le; Tehmina Asif; Amer Sami; Shahid Ahmed
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2021-04-09       Impact factor: 3.677

10.  Central venous port-related infection in patients with malignant tumors: an observational study.

Authors:  Akio Akahane; Miyuki Sone; Shigeru Ehara; Kenichi Kato; Michiko Suzuki; Ryoichi Tanaka; Akira Suwabe; Tetsuya Itabashi; Kashiwaba Masahiro
Journal:  Ups J Med Sci       Date:  2012-02-29       Impact factor: 2.384

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.