BACKGROUND: Conventional totally implantable venous access ports (TIVAPs) are not approved for power contrast injections but often remain the only venous access site in oncologic patients. Therefore, these devices can play an important role if patients with a TIVAP are scheduled for a contrast-enhanced computed tomography (ceCT) as vascular access may become more difficult during the course of chemotherapy. PURPOSE: To evaluate the feasibility and safety of power injections in conventional TIVAPs in the forearm and to analyze the feasibility of bolus triggering during CT scans. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this retrospective study we analyzed 177 power injections in 141 patients with TIVAPs in the forearm. Between October 2008 and March 2010 all patients underwent power injections (1.5 mL/s, 150 psi) via the TIVAP for ceCT because conventional vascular access via a peripheral vein had failed. Adequate functioning and catheter's tip location after injection were evaluated. Peak injection pressure and attenuation levels of aorta, liver and spleen were analyzed and compared with results of 50 patients who were injected via classical peripheral cannulas (3 mL/s, 300 psi). Feasibility of automatic scan initiation was evaluated. In vitro the port was stressed with 5 mL/s (300 psi). RESULTS: One TIVAP showed tip dislocation with catheter rupture. Three (2.1%) devices were explanted owing to assumed infection within 4 weeks after the injection. Mean injection pressure was 121.9 +/-24.1 psi. Triggering with automatic scan initiation succeeded in 13/44 (29.6%) scans. Injection via classical cannulas resulted in significantly higher enhancement (p < 0.05). In vitro the port system tolerated flow rates of up to 5 mL/s, injection pressures of up to 338 psi. CONCLUSION: Power injection is a safe alternative for patients with TIVAPs in the forearm if classic vascular access ultimately fails. Triggering was successful in one-third of the attempts. Image quality in the arterial phase scan may be hampered. In vitro results suggest that the device tolerates even higher flow rates.
BACKGROUND: Conventional totally implantable venous access ports (TIVAPs) are not approved for power contrast injections but often remain the only venous access site in oncologic patients. Therefore, these devices can play an important role if patients with a TIVAP are scheduled for a contrast-enhanced computed tomography (ceCT) as vascular access may become more difficult during the course of chemotherapy. PURPOSE: To evaluate the feasibility and safety of power injections in conventional TIVAPs in the forearm and to analyze the feasibility of bolus triggering during CT scans. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this retrospective study we analyzed 177 power injections in 141 patients with TIVAPs in the forearm. Between October 2008 and March 2010 all patients underwent power injections (1.5 mL/s, 150 psi) via the TIVAP for ceCT because conventional vascular access via a peripheral vein had failed. Adequate functioning and catheter's tip location after injection were evaluated. Peak injection pressure and attenuation levels of aorta, liver and spleen were analyzed and compared with results of 50 patients who were injected via classical peripheral cannulas (3 mL/s, 300 psi). Feasibility of automatic scan initiation was evaluated. In vitro the port was stressed with 5 mL/s (300 psi). RESULTS: One TIVAP showed tip dislocation with catheter rupture. Three (2.1%) devices were explanted owing to assumed infection within 4 weeks after the injection. Mean injection pressure was 121.9 +/-24.1 psi. Triggering with automatic scan initiation succeeded in 13/44 (29.6%) scans. Injection via classical cannulas resulted in significantly higher enhancement (p < 0.05). In vitro the port system tolerated flow rates of up to 5 mL/s, injection pressures of up to 338 psi. CONCLUSION: Power injection is a safe alternative for patients with TIVAPs in the forearm if classic vascular access ultimately fails. Triggering was successful in one-third of the attempts. Image quality in the arterial phase scan may be hampered. In vitro results suggest that the device tolerates even higher flow rates.
Authors: James C Fielding; Nicolaus A Wagner-Bartak; Sanaz Javadi; Ajaykumar C Morani; Dhakshinamoorthy Ganeshan; Juan J Ibarra-Rovira; Xinming Liu; Corey T Jensen Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2020 Nov/Dec Impact factor: 2.081
Authors: Giles Roditi; Nadir Khan; Aart J van der Molen; Marie-France Bellin; Michele Bertolotto; Torkel Brismar; Jean-Michel Correas; Ilona A Dekkers; Remy W F Geenen; Gertraud Heinz-Peer; Andreas H Mahnken; Carlo C Quattrocchi; Alexander Radbruch; Peter Reimer; Laura Romanini; Fulvio Stacul; Henrik S Thomsen; Olivier Clément Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2022-02-17 Impact factor: 7.034
Authors: Gérard Guiffant; Jean Jacques Durussel; Patrice Flaud; Laurent Royon; Pierre Yves Marcy; Jacques Merckx Journal: Med Devices (Auckl) Date: 2013-09-03