Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology
Published in: CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology 5/2009

01-09-2009 | Clinical Investigation

A Comparison of Clinical Outcomes with Regular- and Low-Profile Totally Implanted Central Venous Port Systems

Authors: Ulf Karl-Martin Teichgräber, Florian Steitparth, Chie Hee Cho, Thomas Benter, Bernhard Gebauer

Published in: CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology | Issue 5/2009

Login to get access

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether low-profile totally implanted central venous port systems can reduce the late complication of skin perforation. Forty patients (age, 57 ± 13 years; 22 females, 18 males) were randomized for the implantation of a low-profile port system, and another 40 patients (age, 61 ± 14 years; 24 females, 16 males) received a regular port system as control group. Indications for port catheter implantation were malignant disease requiring chemotherapy. All port implantations were performed in the angiography suite using sonographically guided central venous puncture and fluoroscopic guidance of the catheter placement. Procedure time, number of complications (procedure-related immediate, early, and late complications), and number of explantations were assessed. Follow-up was performed for 6 months. All port implantations were successfully completed in both study groups. There were two incidents of skin perforation observed in the control group. One skin perforation occurred 13 weeks and the other 16 weeks after port implantation (incidence, 5%) in patients with regular-profile port systems. Two infections were observed, one port infection in each study group. Both infections were characterized as catheter-related infections (infection rate: 0.15 catheter-related infections per 1000 catheter days). In conclusion, low-profile port systems can be placed as safely as traditional chest ports and reduce the risk of developing skin perforations, which occurs when the port system is too tight within the port pocket.
Literature
1.
Teichgräber UK, Gebauer B, Benter T, Wagner HJ (2003) Central venous access catheters: radiological management of complications. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol 26:321–333CrossRef
2.
Chang HM, Hsieh CB, Hsieh HF et al (2006) An alternative technique for totally implantable central venous access devices. A retrospective study of 1311 cases. Eur J Surg Oncol 32:90–93PubMedCrossRef
3.
Zahringer M, Hilgers J, Kruger K et al (2006) Ultrasound guided implantation of chest port systems via the lateral subclavian vein. Rofo 178:324–329PubMed
4.
Aldrighetti L, Paganelli M, Arru M et al (2000) Complications of blind placement technique in 980 subcutaneous infusion ports. J Vasc Access 1:28–32PubMed
5.
Cil BE, Canyigit M, Peynircioglu B et al (2006) Subcutaneous venous port implantation in adult patients: a single center experience. Diagn Interv Radiol 12:93–98PubMed
6.
Benter T, Teichgraber UK, Kluhs L et al (2001) Anatomical variations in the internal jugular veins of cancer patients affecting central venous access. Anatomical variation of the internal jugular vein. Ultraschall Med 22:23–26
7.
Teichgräber UK, Benter T, Gebel M, Manns MP (1997) A sonographically guided technique for central venous access. AJR Am J Roentgenol 169:731–733PubMed
8.
Wagner HJ, Teichgräber U, Gebauer B, Kalinowski M (2003) Transjugular implantation of venous port catheter systems. Rofo 175:1539–1544PubMed
9.
Baskin KM, Jimenez RM, Cahill AM, Jawad AF, Towbin RB (2008) Cavoatrial junction and central venous anatomy: implications for central venous access tip position. J Vasc Interv Radiol 19:359–365PubMedCrossRef
10.
Crowley JJ, Pereira JK, Harris LS, Becker CJ (1998) Radiologic placement of long-term subcutaneous venous access ports in children. AJR Am J Roentgenol 171:257–260PubMed
11.
Burbridge B, Krieger E, Stoneham G (2000) Arm placement of the Cook titanium Petite Vital-Port: results of radiologic placement in 125 patients with cancer. Can Assoc Radiol J 51:163–169PubMed
12.
Lundberg G, Wahlberg E, Rickberg A, Olofsson P (1995) PAS-Port: a new implantable vascular access device for arm placement: experiences from the first two years. Eur J Surg 161:323–326PubMed
13.
Hata Y, Morita S, Morita Y et al (1998) Peripheral insertion of a central venous access device under fluoroscopic guidance using a peripherally accessed system (PAS) port in the forearm. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol 21:230–233CrossRef
14.
Nosher JL, Bodner LJ, Ettinger LJ et al (2001) Radiologic placement of a low profile implantable venous access port in a pediatric population. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol 24:395–399CrossRef
15.
Silberzweig JE, Sacks D, Khorsandi AS, Bakal CW (2000) Reporting standards for central venous access. Technology Assessment Committee. J Vasc Interv Radiol 11:391–400
16.
Wolf HH, Leithauser M, Maschmeyer G et al (2008) Central venous catheter-related infections in hematology and oncology: guidelines of the Infectious Diseases Working Party (AGIHO) of the German Society of Hematology and Oncology (DGHO). Ann Hematol 87(11):863–876PubMedCrossRef
17.
Nouwen JL, Wielenga JJ, van Overhagen H et al (1999) Hickman catheter-related infections in neutropenic patients: insertion in the operating theater versus insertion in the radiology suite. J Clin Oncol 17:1304PubMed
18.
Elishoov H, Or R, Strauss N, Engelhard D (1998) Nosocomial colonization, septicemia, and Hickman/Broviac catheter-related infections in bone marrow transplant recipients A 5-year prospective study. Medicine (Baltimore) 77:83–101CrossRef
19.
Biffi R, de Braud F, Orsi F et al (1998) Totally implantable central venous access ports for long-term chemotherapy. A prospective study analyzing complications and costs of 333 devices with a minimum follow-up of 180 days. Ann Oncol 9:767–773PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
A Comparison of Clinical Outcomes with Regular- and Low-Profile Totally Implanted Central Venous Port Systems
Authors
Ulf Karl-Martin Teichgräber
Florian Steitparth
Chie Hee Cho
Thomas Benter
Bernhard Gebauer
Publication date
01-09-2009
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology / Issue 5/2009
Print ISSN: 0174-1551
Electronic ISSN: 1432-086X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-008-9477-3

Other articles of this Issue 5/2009

CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology 5/2009 Go to the issue

Clinical Investigation

Outcomes of Interventions Via a Transradial Approach for Dysfunctional Brescia-Cimino Fistulas

CIRSE Guidelines

Standard of Practice for the Endovascular Treatment of Thoracic Aortic Aneurysms and Type B Dissections

Clinical Investigation

Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis for Treatment of Deep Venous Thrombosis in the Upper Extremities

Letter to the Editor

Radiofrequency Ablation of Colorectal Liver Metastases in a Transplanted Liver

Letter to the Editor

Complementary Use of NBCA with the Amplatzer Vascular Plug for Embolization of a High-Flow Traumatic Hepatic Arteriovenous Fistula

Technical Note

Development of a New Subclavian Arterial Infusion Chemotherapy Method for Locally or Recurrent Advanced Breast Cancer Using an Implanted Catheter–Port System After Redistribution of Arterial Tumor Supply