BACKGROUND: The objective of the current study was 2-fold: to evaluate a radiologically placed percutaneous arm port device (PRAPD) in a large series of 1000 consecutive cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy (in terms of safety, efficacy, complications, and quality of life [QoL]) and to propose future recommendations. METHODS: From 1998 to August 2002, all patients who had cancer required chemotherapy underwent insertion of a PRAPD and were prospectively included. All patients were followed for technical feasibility, overall device-related complications, and QoL. RESULTS: Technical failures (6.3%) were caused by the inability to perform an arm venogram in 22 patients or to catheterize the brachial vein in 41 patients. Septic complications (3.2%) included septicemia (n = 7 patients), catheter sepsis (n = 9 patients), and febrile neutropenia (n = 16 patients). Mechanical complications (4%) included a twisted port (n = 2 patients), extravasation (n = 7 patients), catheter leaks (n = 7 patients), port obstruction (n = 7 patients), skin dehiscence of the port (n = 11 patients), catheter rupture and occlusion (n = 5 patients), and median nerve compression (n = 1 patient). Central venous thrombosis occurred in 12 patients (1.2%), and arm phlebitis occurred in 7 patients (0.7%). Procedure-related death occurred in 0.4%. Early port removal was performed in 5.3% of patients. Good QoL was reported at port removal. CONCLUSIONS: The PRAPD was found to be safe, effective, and well tolerated in oncology patients. PRAPD could be recommended in selected patients instead of a surgical port device. (c) 2007 American Cancer Society.
BACKGROUND: The objective of the current study was 2-fold: to evaluate a radiologically placed percutaneous arm port device (PRAPD) in a large series of 1000 consecutive cancerpatients undergoing chemotherapy (in terms of safety, efficacy, complications, and quality of life [QoL]) and to propose future recommendations. METHODS: From 1998 to August 2002, all patients who had cancer required chemotherapy underwent insertion of a PRAPD and were prospectively included. All patients were followed for technical feasibility, overall device-related complications, and QoL. RESULTS: Technical failures (6.3%) were caused by the inability to perform an arm venogram in 22 patients or to catheterize the brachial vein in 41 patients. Septic complications (3.2%) included septicemia (n = 7 patients), catheter sepsis (n = 9 patients), and febrile neutropenia (n = 16 patients). Mechanical complications (4%) included a twisted port (n = 2 patients), extravasation (n = 7 patients), catheter leaks (n = 7 patients), port obstruction (n = 7 patients), skin dehiscence of the port (n = 11 patients), catheter rupture and occlusion (n = 5 patients), and median nerve compression (n = 1 patient). Central venous thrombosis occurred in 12 patients (1.2%), and arm phlebitis occurred in 7 patients (0.7%). Procedure-related death occurred in 0.4%. Early port removal was performed in 5.3% of patients. Good QoL was reported at port removal. CONCLUSIONS: The PRAPD was found to be safe, effective, and well tolerated in oncology patients. PRAPD could be recommended in selected patients instead of a surgical port device. (c) 2007 American Cancer Society.
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
Authors: R Berardi; S Rinaldi; D Santini; B Vincenzi; R Giampieri; E Maccaroni; F Marcucci; M Francoletti; A Onofri; A Lucarelli; C Pierantoni; G Tonini; S Cascinu Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2014-10-19 Impact factor: 3.603