Skip to main content
Top
Published in: CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology 6/2010

01-12-2010 | Clinical Investigation

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

Published in: CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology | Issue 6/2010

Login to get access

Abstract

The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of percutaneously placed totally implantable venous-access ports (TIVAPs) of the forearm. Between January 2006 and October 2008, peripheral TIVAPs were implanted in 763 consecutive patients by ultrasound and fluoroscopic guidance. All catheters were implanted under local anesthesia and were tunneled subcutaneously. Indication, technical success, and complications were retrospectively analyzed according to Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR) criteria. Presence of antibiotic prophylaxis, periprocedurally administered drugs (e.g., sedation), and laboratory results at the time of implantation were analyzed. Maintenance during the service interval was evaluated. In total, 327,499 catheter-days were analyzed. Technical success rate was 99.3%. Reasons for initial failure of implantation were either unexpected thrombosis of the subclavian vein, expanding tumor mass of the mediastinum, or failure of peripheral venous access due to fragile vessels. Mean follow-up was 430 days. There were 115 complications observed (15.1%, 0.03 per 100 catheter-days), of which 33 (4.3%) were classified as early (within 30 days from implantation) and 82 (10.7%) as late. Catheter-related venous thrombosis was found in 65 (8.5%) of 763 (0.02 per 100 catheter-days) TIVAPs. Infections were observed in 41 (5.4%) of 763 (0.01 per 100 catheter-days) devices. Other complications observed included dislocation of the catheter tip (0.8%), occlusion (0.1%), or rupture (0.1%) of the port catheter. Dislocated catheters were corrected during a second interventional procedure. In conclusion, implantation of percutaneously placed peripheral TIVAPs shows a high technical success rate and low risk of early complications when ultrasound and fluoroscopic guidance are used. Late complications are observed three times as often as early complications.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Jordan K, Behlendorf T, Surov A et al (2008) Venous access ports: frequency and management of complications in oncology patients. Onkologie 31:404–410CrossRefPubMed Jordan K, Behlendorf T, Surov A et al (2008) Venous access ports: frequency and management of complications in oncology patients. Onkologie 31:404–410CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Koolen DA, van Laarhoven HW, Wobbes T et al (2002) Single-centre experience with tunnelled central venous catheters in 150 cancer patients. Neth J Med 60:397–401PubMed Koolen DA, van Laarhoven HW, Wobbes T et al (2002) Single-centre experience with tunnelled central venous catheters in 150 cancer patients. Neth J Med 60:397–401PubMed
3.
go back to reference Ng F, Mastoroudes H, Paul E et al (2007) A comparison of Hickman line–and Port-a-Cath–associated complications in patients with solid tumours undergoing chemotherapy. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 19:551–556 Ng F, Mastoroudes H, Paul E et al (2007) A comparison of Hickman line–and Port-a-Cath–associated complications in patients with solid tumours undergoing chemotherapy. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 19:551–556
4.
go back to reference Lorch H, Zwaan M, Kagel C et al (2001) Central venous access ports placed by interventional radiologists: experience with 125 consecutive patients. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 24:180–184CrossRefPubMed Lorch H, Zwaan M, Kagel C et al (2001) Central venous access ports placed by interventional radiologists: experience with 125 consecutive patients. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 24:180–184CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Bodner LJ, Nosher JL, Patel KM et al (2000) Peripheral venous access ports: outcomes analysis in 109 patients. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 23:187–193CrossRefPubMed Bodner LJ, Nosher JL, Patel KM et al (2000) Peripheral venous access ports: outcomes analysis in 109 patients. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 23:187–193CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Kock HJ, Pietsch M, Krause U et al (1998) Implantable vascular access systems: experience in 1500 patients with totally implanted central venous port systems. World J Surg 22:12–16CrossRefPubMed Kock HJ, Pietsch M, Krause U et al (1998) Implantable vascular access systems: experience in 1500 patients with totally implanted central venous port systems. World J Surg 22:12–16CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Silberzweig JE, Sacks D, Khorsandi AS et al (2003) Reporting standards for central venous access. J Vasc Interv Radiol 14:S443–S452PubMed Silberzweig JE, Sacks D, Khorsandi AS et al (2003) Reporting standards for central venous access. J Vasc Interv Radiol 14:S443–S452PubMed
8.
go back to reference Sacks D, McClenny TE, Cardella JF et al (2003) Society of Interventional Radiology clinical practice guidelines. J Vasc Interv Radiol 14:S199–S202PubMed Sacks D, McClenny TE, Cardella JF et al (2003) Society of Interventional Radiology clinical practice guidelines. J Vasc Interv Radiol 14:S199–S202PubMed
9.
go back to reference Kreis H, Loehberg CR, Lux MP et al (2007) Patients’ attitudes to totally implantable venous access port systems for gynecological or breast malignancies. Eur J Surg Oncol 33:39–43PubMed Kreis H, Loehberg CR, Lux MP et al (2007) Patients’ attitudes to totally implantable venous access port systems for gynecological or breast malignancies. Eur J Surg Oncol 33:39–43PubMed
10.
go back to reference Marcy PY, Magne N, Castadot P et al (2005) Radiological and surgical placement of port devices: a 4-year institutional analysis of procedure performance, quality of life and cost in breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat 92:61–67CrossRefPubMed Marcy PY, Magne N, Castadot P et al (2005) Radiological and surgical placement of port devices: a 4-year institutional analysis of procedure performance, quality of life and cost in breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat 92:61–67CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Horattas MC, Trupiano J, Hopkins S et al (2001) Changing concepts in long-term central venous access: catheter selection and cost savings. Am J Infect Control 29:32–40CrossRefPubMed Horattas MC, Trupiano J, Hopkins S et al (2001) Changing concepts in long-term central venous access: catheter selection and cost savings. Am J Infect Control 29:32–40CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Gebauer B, El-Sheik M, Vogt M et al (2009) Combined ultrasound and fluoroscopy guided port catheter implantation—high success and low complication rate. Eur J Radiol 69:517–522CrossRefPubMed Gebauer B, El-Sheik M, Vogt M et al (2009) Combined ultrasound and fluoroscopy guided port catheter implantation—high success and low complication rate. Eur J Radiol 69:517–522CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Seiler CM, Frohlich BE, Dorsam UJ et al (2006) Surgical technique for totally implantable access ports (TIAP) needs improvement: a multivariate analysis of 400 patients. J Surg Oncol 93:24–29CrossRefPubMed Seiler CM, Frohlich BE, Dorsam UJ et al (2006) Surgical technique for totally implantable access ports (TIAP) needs improvement: a multivariate analysis of 400 patients. J Surg Oncol 93:24–29CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Gebauer B, Teichgraber U, Werk M et al (2007) Periinterventional prophylactic antibiotics in radiological port catheter implantation. Rofo 179:804–810PubMed Gebauer B, Teichgraber U, Werk M et al (2007) Periinterventional prophylactic antibiotics in radiological port catheter implantation. Rofo 179:804–810PubMed
15.
go back to reference Da Costa A, Kirkorian G, Cucherat M et al (1998) Antibiotic prophylaxis for permanent pacemaker implantation: a meta-analysis. Circulation 97:1796–1801PubMed Da Costa A, Kirkorian G, Cucherat M et al (1998) Antibiotic prophylaxis for permanent pacemaker implantation: a meta-analysis. Circulation 97:1796–1801PubMed
16.
go back to reference Bertaglia E, Zerbo F, Zardo S et al (2006) Antibiotic prophylaxis with a single dose of cefazolin during pacemaker implantation: incidence of long-term infective complications. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 29:29–33CrossRefPubMed Bertaglia E, Zerbo F, Zardo S et al (2006) Antibiotic prophylaxis with a single dose of cefazolin during pacemaker implantation: incidence of long-term infective complications. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 29:29–33CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference McGee DC, Gould MK (2003) Preventing complications of central venous catheterization. N Engl J Med 348:1123–1133CrossRefPubMed McGee DC, Gould MK (2003) Preventing complications of central venous catheterization. N Engl J Med 348:1123–1133CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference 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 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
19.
go back to reference Kurul S, Saip P, Aydin T (2002) Totally implantable venous-access ports: local problems and extravasation injury. Lancet Oncol 3:684–692CrossRefPubMed Kurul S, Saip P, Aydin T (2002) Totally implantable venous-access ports: local problems and extravasation injury. Lancet Oncol 3:684–692CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Vescia S, Baumgartner AK, Jacobs VR et al (2008) Management of venous port systems in oncology: a review of current evidence. Ann Oncol 19:9–15CrossRefPubMed Vescia S, Baumgartner AK, Jacobs VR et al (2008) Management of venous port systems in oncology: a review of current evidence. Ann Oncol 19:9–15CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Gilsdorf JR, Wilson K, Beals TF (1989) Bacterial colonization of intravenous catheter materials in vitro and in vivo. Surgery 106:37–44PubMed Gilsdorf JR, Wilson K, Beals TF (1989) Bacterial colonization of intravenous catheter materials in vitro and in vivo. Surgery 106:37–44PubMed
22.
go back to reference Samaras P, Dold S, Braun J et al (2008) Infectious port complications are more frequent in younger patients with hematologic malignancies than in solid tumor patients. Oncology 74:237–244CrossRefPubMed Samaras P, Dold S, Braun J et al (2008) Infectious port complications are more frequent in younger patients with hematologic malignancies than in solid tumor patients. Oncology 74:237–244CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference McNulty NJ, Kiley DP, Silas AM et al (2009) Implantable subcutaneous venous access devices: is port fixation necessary? A review of 534 cases. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. doi:10.1007/s00270-009-9758-5 McNulty NJ, Kiley DP, Silas AM et al (2009) Implantable subcutaneous venous access devices: is port fixation necessary? A review of 534 cases. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. doi:10.​1007/​s00270-009-9758-5
Metadata
Title
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
Publication date
01-12-2010
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology / Issue 6/2010
Print ISSN: 0174-1551
Electronic ISSN: 1432-086X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-010-9854-6

Other articles of this Issue 6/2010

CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology 6/2010 Go to the issue