OBJECTIVE: We describe our long-term experience with radiologic implantation of the Peripheral Access System (PAS) Port venous access device. Technical efficacy and complications are documented and compared with surgical and radiologic series involving other long-term venous access devices. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Fifty-two PAS-Port catheters were implanted in 51 patients during a 30-month period. All procedures took place in the angiography suite and were performed by interventional radiologists with imaging guidance. Patients were followed up through the oncology clinic or the clinic that originally referred the patient. The durability of the catheter was evaluated, and complications were recorded during the study period. RESULTS: Fifty-two ports have been indwelling for a total of 18,357 patient-days. The mean time of implantation was 372 days, with a range of 30-825 days. Technical success in implanting the device was 100%. Device-related sepsis occurred in one patient (2%), superficial thrombophlebitis in one patient (2%), skin site dehiscence in one patient (2%), and deep vein thrombosis in one patient (2%). No instances of catheter occlusion occurred, and all catheters retained the ability to aspirate blood throughout their use. The overall complication rate was 8% (0.22/1000 patient days). CONCLUSION: Radiologic placement of this device is safe and effective. It offers many patients a superior alternative to surgically implanted chest wall ports. Complications are fewer, and chances for technical success are greater. In circumstances where cosmesis is deemed highly important, the PAS-Port device may be preferable to tunneled venous access catheters.
OBJECTIVE: We describe our long-term experience with radiologic implantation of the Peripheral Access System (PAS) Port venous access device. Technical efficacy and complications are documented and compared with surgical and radiologic series involving other long-term venous access devices. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Fifty-two PAS-Port catheters were implanted in 51 patients during a 30-month period. All procedures took place in the angiography suite and were performed by interventional radiologists with imaging guidance. Patients were followed up through the oncology clinic or the clinic that originally referred the patient. The durability of the catheter was evaluated, and complications were recorded during the study period. RESULTS: Fifty-two ports have been indwelling for a total of 18,357 patient-days. The mean time of implantation was 372 days, with a range of 30-825 days. Technical success in implanting the device was 100%. Device-related sepsis occurred in one patient (2%), superficial thrombophlebitis in one patient (2%), skin site dehiscence in one patient (2%), and deep vein thrombosis in one patient (2%). No instances of catheter occlusion occurred, and all catheters retained the ability to aspirate blood throughout their use. The overall complication rate was 8% (0.22/1000 patient days). CONCLUSION: Radiologic placement of this device is safe and effective. It offers many patients a superior alternative to surgically implanted chest wall ports. Complications are fewer, and chances for technical success are greater. In circumstances where cosmesis is deemed highly important, the PAS-Port device may be preferable to tunneled venous access catheters.
Authors: Chul Seung Lee; Sung-Hoon Yoon; Seung-Min Lee; In Kyu Lee; Jang Young Kim; Hyun Min Cho; Min Ki Kim Journal: World J Surg Date: 2020-04 Impact factor: 3.352