Literature DB >> 20414657

Peripherally placed totally implantable venous-access port systems of the forearm: clinical experience in 763 consecutive patients.

Jan P Goltz1, Anne Scholl, Christian O Ritter, Günther Wittenberg, Dietbert Hahn, Ralph Kickuth.   

Abstract

The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of percutaneously placed totally implantable venous-access ports (TIVAPs) of the forearm. Between January 2006 and October 2008, peripheral TIVAPs were implanted in 763 consecutive patients by ultrasound and fluoroscopic guidance. All catheters were implanted under local anesthesia and were tunneled subcutaneously. Indication, technical success, and complications were retrospectively analyzed according to Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR) criteria. Presence of antibiotic prophylaxis, periprocedurally administered drugs (e.g., sedation), and laboratory results at the time of implantation were analyzed. Maintenance during the service interval was evaluated. In total, 327,499 catheter-days were analyzed. Technical success rate was 99.3%. Reasons for initial failure of implantation were either unexpected thrombosis of the subclavian vein, expanding tumor mass of the mediastinum, or failure of peripheral venous access due to fragile vessels. Mean follow-up was 430 days. There were 115 complications observed (15.1%, 0.03 per 100 catheter-days), of which 33 (4.3%) were classified as early (within 30 days from implantation) and 82 (10.7%) as late. Catheter-related venous thrombosis was found in 65 (8.5%) of 763 (0.02 per 100 catheter-days) TIVAPs. Infections were observed in 41 (5.4%) of 763 (0.01 per 100 catheter-days) devices. Other complications observed included dislocation of the catheter tip (0.8%), occlusion (0.1%), or rupture (0.1%) of the port catheter. Dislocated catheters were corrected during a second interventional procedure. In conclusion, implantation of percutaneously placed peripheral TIVAPs shows a high technical success rate and low risk of early complications when ultrasound and fluoroscopic guidance are used. Late complications are observed three times as often as early complications.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20414657     DOI: 10.1007/s00270-010-9854-6

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


  15 in total

1.  Totally implantable venous power ports of the forearm and the chest: initial clinical experience with port devices approved for high-pressure injections.

Authors:  J P Goltz; C Noack; B Petritsch; J Kirchner; D Hahn; R Kickuth
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2012-06-06       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  Femoral placement of totally implantable venous power ports as an alternative implantation site for patients with central vein occlusions.

Authors:  Jan P Goltz; Hendrik Janssen; Bernhard Petritsch; Ralph Kickuth
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2013-09-24       Impact factor: 3.603

3.  Percutaneous image-guided implantation of totally implantable venous access ports in the forearm or the chest? A patients' point of view.

Authors:  Jan Peter Goltz; Bernhard Petritsch; Johannes Kirchner; Dietbert Hahn; Ralph Kickuth
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2012-07-25       Impact factor: 3.603

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

5.  Femoral Placement of Totally Implantable Venous Access Ports in Patients with Bilateral Breast Cancer.

Authors:  V Almasi-Sperling; S Hieber; J Lermann; O Strahl; M W Beckmann; W Lang; T A Sagban
Journal:  Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 2.915

6.  [Catheters with implantable chamber: report of a series of 970 cases].

Authors:  El Hassane Kabiri; Massine El Hammoumi; Akram Traibi; Faycal El Oueriachi; Adil Arsalane
Journal:  Pan Afr Med J       Date:  2012-07-13

7.  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

8.  Upper-Extremity Deep Vein Thrombosis in Patients With Breast Cancer With Chest Versus Arm Central Venous Port Catheters.

Authors:  Danielle Tippit; Eric Siegel; Daniella Ochoa; Angela Pennisi; Erica Hill; Amelia Merrill; Mark Rowe; Ronda Henry-Tillman; Aneesha Ananthula; Issam Makhoul
Journal:  Breast Cancer (Auckl)       Date:  2018-04-20

9.  Implanting totally implantable venous access port via the internal jugular vein guided by ultrasonography is feasible and safe in patients with breast cancer.

Authors:  Jie Zhou; Shikun Qian; Weixing He; Guodong Han; Hongsheng Li; Rongcheng Luo
Journal:  World J Surg Oncol       Date:  2014-12-08       Impact factor: 2.754

10.  The Treatment Results of a Standard Algorithm for Choosing the Best Entry Vessel for Intravenous Port Implantation.

Authors:  Wen-Cheng Wei; Ching-Yang Wu; Ching-Feng Wu; Jui-Ying Fu; Ta-Wei Su; Sheng-Yueh Yu; Tsung-Chi Kao; Po-Jen Ko
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 1.817

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.