Literature DB >> 22674705

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

J P Goltz1, C Noack, B Petritsch, J Kirchner, D Hahn, R Kickuth.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22674705      PMCID: PMC3500819          DOI: 10.1259/bjr/33224341

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Radiol        ISSN: 0007-1285            Impact factor:   3.039


  23 in total

1.  Society of Interventional Radiology clinical practice guidelines.

Authors:  David Sacks; Tricia E McClenny; John F Cardella; Curtis A Lewis
Journal:  J Vasc Interv Radiol       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 3.464

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

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

3.  Ultrasound-Guided Radiological Placement of Central Venous Port via the Subclavian Vein: A Retrospective Analysis of 500 Cases at a Single Institute.

Authors:  Notiaki Sakamoto; Yasuaki Arai; Yoshito Takeuchi; Mahahide Takahashi; Masakatsu Tsurusaki; Kazuro Sugimuta
Journal:  Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 2.740

4.  [Radiological placement of peripheral central venous access ports at the forearm. Technical results and long term outcome in 391 patients].

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

5.  Randomized clinical trial comparing venous cutdown with the Seldinger technique for placement of implantable venous access ports.

Authors:  A Nocito; S Wildi; K Rufibach; P-A Clavien; M Weber
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 6.939

6.  Jugular versus subclavian totally implantable access ports: catheter position, complications and intrainterventional pain perception.

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

7.  A comparison between distal and proximal port device insertion in head and neck cancer.

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

8.  Long-term outcomes of peripheral arm ports implanted in patients with colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Junichiro Kawamura; Satoshi Nagayama; Akinari Nomura; Atsushi Itami; Hiroshi Okabe; Seiji Sato; Go Watanabe; Yoshiharu Sakai
Journal:  Int J Clin Oncol       Date:  2008-08-15       Impact factor: 3.402

9.  Combined ultrasound and fluoroscopy guided port catheter implantation--high success and low complication rate.

Authors:  Bernhard Gebauer; Michael El-Sheik; Michael Vogt; Hans-Joachim Wagner
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 3.528

Review 10.  Long-term outcome of radiological-guided insertion of implanted central venous access port devices (CVAPD) for the delivery of chemotherapy in cancer patients: institutional experience and review of the literature.

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

View more
  10 in total

1.  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

2.  Totally Implantable Central Venous Port Catheters: Radiation Exposure as a Function of Puncture Site and Operator Experience.

Authors:  Martin Jonczyk; Bernhard Gebauer; Roman Rotzinger; Dirk Schnapauff; Bernd Hamm; Federico Collettini
Journal:  In Vivo       Date:  2018 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.155

3.  Current situation regarding central venous port implantation procedures and complications: a questionnaire-based survey of 11,693 implantations in Japan.

Authors:  Masatoshi Shiono; Shin Takahashi; Masanobu Takahashi; Takuhiro Yamaguchi; Chikashi Ishioka
Journal:  Int J Clin Oncol       Date:  2016-06-21       Impact factor: 3.402

Review 4.  [Perioperative care of palliative patients by the anesthetist : medical, psychosocial and ethical challenges].

Authors:  C L Lassen; R Abel; L Eichler; Y A Zausig; B M Graf; C H R Wiese
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 1.041

5.  Improved Computed Tomography Contrast Injection Rates Through Implantable Chest Power Ports.

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

6.  Complications after implantation of subcutaneous central venous ports (PowerPort).

Authors:  Takatoshi Nakamura; Jiichiro Sasaki; Yasushi Asari; Takeo Sato; Shinzo Torii; Masahiko Watanabe
Journal:  Ann Med Surg (Lond)       Date:  2017-03-10

7.  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

8.  Arm port vs chest port: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Guanhua Li; Yu Zhang; Hongmin Ma; Junmeng Zheng
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2019-07-03       Impact factor: 3.989

9.  Central venous access ports in the interventional radiology suite - one-centre experience.

Authors:  Bartosz Zabicki; Nattakarn Limphaibool; Marte Johanne Veilemand Holstad; Katarzyna Perkowska
Journal:  Pol J Radiol       Date:  2019-08-27

10.  Comparison between Arm Port and Chest Port for Optimal Vascular Access Port in Patients with Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

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

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.