PURPOSE: The aim of this prospective study was to examine two port systems for intravenous chemotherapy, authorized for high pressure injection, with respect to implantation, complications, implementation, and patency. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 40 high pressure port systems of the two available models (20 x Power Port [Bard], 20 x T-Port-Contrast [PFM]) and 20 standard port systems (X-Port [BARD]) as the control group were implanted. Both high pressure systems are authorized for injection with a maximum pressure of 300 PSI. The patient population was comprised of patients with different malignomas and liver metastases. At regular intervals following the protocol of the chemotherapy, multiphasic CT for tumor staging was carried out. RESULTS: The intravenous port systems were implanted without complications under sonographic guidance with transjugular access. The mean implantation time was 30 min (range: 22 - 40 min). After a median follow-up time of 6 months, the port patency was 100%. No port infections and no complications during high pressure injection of contrast agent occurred during this period. The level of contrast measured in the aorta was equivalent to the level of contrast in the vessels when contrast agent is administered over a large peripheral intravenous access. CONCLUSION: The intravenous high pressure port systems are equivalent to standard systems with regard to implantation and implementation. Intravenous chemotherapy can be performed as usual. The advantage is the possibility of multiphasic CT with authorized flow rates of up to 5 ml/sec.
PURPOSE: The aim of this prospective study was to examine two port systems for intravenous chemotherapy, authorized for high pressure injection, with respect to implantation, complications, implementation, and patency. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 40 high pressure port systems of the two available models (20 x Power Port [Bard], 20 x T-Port-Contrast [PFM]) and 20 standard port systems (X-Port [BARD]) as the control group were implanted. Both high pressure systems are authorized for injection with a maximum pressure of 300 PSI. The patient population was comprised of patients with different malignomas and liver metastases. At regular intervals following the protocol of the chemotherapy, multiphasic CT for tumor staging was carried out. RESULTS: The intravenous port systems were implanted without complications under sonographic guidance with transjugular access. The mean implantation time was 30 min (range: 22 - 40 min). After a median follow-up time of 6 months, the port patency was 100%. No port infections and no complications during high pressure injection of contrast agent occurred during this period. The level of contrast measured in the aorta was equivalent to the level of contrast in the vessels when contrast agent is administered over a large peripheral intravenous access. CONCLUSION: The intravenous high pressure port systems are equivalent to standard systems with regard to implantation and implementation. Intravenous chemotherapy can be performed as usual. The advantage is the possibility of multiphasic CT with authorized flow rates of up to 5 ml/sec.