OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the technical success, clinical outcome and safety of percutaneously placed totally implantable venous power ports (TIVPPs) approved for high-pressure injections, and to analyse their value for arterial phase CT scans. METHODS: Retrospectively, we identified 204 patients who underwent TIVPP implantation in the forearm (n=152) or chest (n=52) between November 2009 and May 2011. Implantation via an upper arm (forearm port, FP) or subclavian vein (chest port, CP) was performed under sonographic and fluoroscopic guidance. Complications were evaluated following the standards of the Society of Interventional Radiology. Power injections via TIVPPs were analysed, focusing on adequate functioning and catheter's tip location after injection. Feasibility of automatic bolus triggering, peak injection pressure and arterial phase aortic enhancement were evaluated and compared with 50 patients who had had power injections via classic peripheral cannulas. RESULTS: Technical success was 100%. Procedure-related complications were not observed. Catheter-related thrombosis was diagnosed in 15 of 152 FPs (9.9%, 0.02/100 catheter days) and in 1 of 52 CPs (1.9%, 0.002/100 catheter days) (p<0.05). Infectious complications were diagnosed in 9 of 152 FPs (5.9%, 0.014/100 catheter days) and in 2 of 52 CPs (3.8%, 0.003/100 catheter days) (p>0.05). Arterial bolus triggering succeeded in all attempts; the mean injection pressure was 213.8 psi. Aortic enhancement did not significantly differ between injections via cannulas and TIVPPs (p>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: TIVPPs can be implanted with high technical success rates, and are associated with low rates of complications if implanted with sonographic and fluoroscopic guidance. Power injections via TIVPPs are safe and result in satisfying arterial contrast. Conventional ports should be replaced by TIVPPs.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the technical success, clinical outcome and safety of percutaneously placed totally implantable venous power ports (TIVPPs) approved for high-pressure injections, and to analyse their value for arterial phase CT scans. METHODS: Retrospectively, we identified 204 patients who underwent TIVPP implantation in the forearm (n=152) or chest (n=52) between November 2009 and May 2011. Implantation via an upper arm (forearm port, FP) or subclavian vein (chest port, CP) was performed under sonographic and fluoroscopic guidance. Complications were evaluated following the standards of the Society of Interventional Radiology. Power injections via TIVPPs were analysed, focusing on adequate functioning and catheter's tip location after injection. Feasibility of automatic bolus triggering, peak injection pressure and arterial phase aortic enhancement were evaluated and compared with 50 patients who had had power injections via classic peripheral cannulas. RESULTS: Technical success was 100%. Procedure-related complications were not observed. Catheter-related thrombosis was diagnosed in 15 of 152 FPs (9.9%, 0.02/100 catheter days) and in 1 of 52 CPs (1.9%, 0.002/100 catheter days) (p<0.05). Infectious complications were diagnosed in 9 of 152 FPs (5.9%, 0.014/100 catheter days) and in 2 of 52 CPs (3.8%, 0.003/100 catheter days) (p>0.05). Arterial bolus triggering succeeded in all attempts; the mean injection pressure was 213.8 psi. Aortic enhancement did not significantly differ between injections via cannulas and TIVPPs (p>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: TIVPPs can be implanted with high technical success rates, and are associated with low rates of complications if implanted with sonographic and fluoroscopic guidance. Power injections via TIVPPs are safe and result in satisfying arterial contrast. Conventional ports should be replaced by TIVPPs.
Authors: Jan P Goltz; Anne Scholl; Christian O Ritter; Günther Wittenberg; Dietbert Hahn; Ralph Kickuth Journal: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Date: 2010-04-23 Impact factor: 2.740
Authors: M Lenhart; S Schätzler; C Manke; M Strotzer; J Seitz; J Gmeinwieser; M Völk; N Zorger; S Feuerbach; T Herold; C Paetzel Journal: Rofo Date: 2009-06-17
Authors: Cédric Plumhans; Andreas H Mahnken; Christina Ocklenburg; Sebastian Keil; Florian F Behrendt; Rolf W Günther; Felix Schoth Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2010-03-12 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: P-Y Marcy; E Chamorey; N Amoretti; K Benezery; R J Bensadoun; A Bozec; G Poissonnet; O Dassonville; M Rame; A Italiano; F Peyrade; F Brenac; J C Gallard Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2007-11-05 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: J Vardy; K Engelhardt; K Cox; J Jacquet; A McDade; M Boyer; P Beale; M Stockler; R Loneragan; B Dennien; R Waugh; S J Clarke Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2004-09-13 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Martin Jonczyk; Bernhard Gebauer; Roman Rotzinger; Dirk Schnapauff; Bernd Hamm; Federico Collettini Journal: In Vivo Date: 2018 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.155
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: Ye Liu; Li-Li Li; Lei Xu; Dong-Dong Feng; Yu Cao; Xiao-Yun Mao; Jin Zheng; Feng Jin; Bo Chen Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2020-02-13 Impact factor: 3.411