European Radiology

, Volume 25, Issue 3, pp 606–616 | Cite as

Short-term and long-term outcome of radiological-guided insertion of central venous access port devices implanted at the forearm: a retrospective monocenter analysis in 1704 patients

  • Moritz Wildgruber
  • Sebastian Borgmeyer
  • Bernhard Haller
  • Heike Jansen
  • Jochen Gaa
  • Marion Kiechle
  • Reinhard Meier
  • Johannes Ettl
  • Hermann Berger
Interventional
First Online:
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:

Abstract

Objectives

The objectives are to analyze the technical success rate as well as the short-term and long-term complications of totally implantable venous access ports (TIVAPs) at the forearm.

Methods

Retrospective analysis of 1,704 consecutively implanted TIVAPs was performed. Primary endpoints were defined as technical success rate, clinical outcome, device service interval, and rates of major complications. Minor complications not requiring port explantation were defined as secondary endpoints.

Results

The technical success rate was 99.2 % with no major complications. During follow-up, a total of 643,200 catheter-days were documented, the mean device service interval was 380.6 days/patient. A total of 243 complications (14.4 %) in 226 patients were observed (0.4/1000 catheter-days), in 140 patients (8.3 %) the port device had to be explanted. Disconnection between the port device and the catheter (1.6 %) was more frequent than fracture (0.8 %) and leakage (0.6 %) of the catheter, which occurred more frequently when the catheter was inserted via the cephalic versus the brachial vein.

Conclusion

TIVAP implantation at the forearm is a simple and safe procedure with a low rate of early and late complications.

Key Points

• TIVAP implantation at the forearm is a minimally invasive and safe procedure.

• Technical success rate is close to 100 %.

• Short-term and long-term complication rates are low.

Keywords

Venous Access Port Interventional Radiology Thrombosis Infection Chemotherapy 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Prof. Dr. Hermann Berger. The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article. The authors state that this work has not received any funding. Bernhard Haller TU München kindly provided statistical advice for this manuscript. One of the authors has significant statistical expertise. Institutional Review Board waived the need to obtain informed consent from the patients. Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board. Methodology: retrospective, observational, performed at one institution.

References

  1. 1.
    Walser EM (2012) Venous access ports: indications, implantation technique, follow-up, and complications. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 35:751–764CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Knebel P, Lopez-Benitez R, Fischer L et al (2011) Insertion of totally implantable venous access devices: an expertise-based, randomized, controlled trial (NCT00600444). Ann Surg 253:1111–1117CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kock HJ, Pietsch M, Krause U, Wilke H, Eigler FW (1998) Implantable vascular access systems: experience in 1500 patients with totally implanted central venous port systems. World J Surg 22:12–16CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Teichgraber UK, Kausche S, Nagel SN, Gebauer B (2011) Outcome analysis in 3,160 implantations of radiologically guided placements of totally implantable central venous port systems. Eur Radiol 21:1224–1232CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kuriakose P, Colon-Otero G, Paz-Fumagalli R (2002) Risk of deep venous thrombosis associated with chest versus arm central venous subcutaneous port catheters: a 5-year single-institution retrospective study. J Vasc Interv Radiol 13:179–184CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bodner LJ, Nosher JL, Patel KM et al (2000) Peripheral venous access ports: outcomes analysis in 109 patients. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 23:187–193CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goltz JP, Scholl A, Ritter CO, Wittenberg G, Hahn D, Kickuth R (2010) Peripherally placed totally implantable venous-access port systems of the forearm: clinical experience in 763 consecutive patients. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 33:1159–1167CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lenhart M, Schatzler S, Manke C et al (2010) Radiological placement of peripheral central venous access ports at the forearm. Technical results and long term outcome in 391 patients. Röfo 182:20–28PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goltz JP, Petritsch B, Kirchner J, Hahn D, Kickuth R (2013) Percutaneous image-guided implantation of totally implantable venous access ports in the forearm or the chest? A patients' point of view. Support Care Cancer 21:505–510CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sacks D, McClenny TE, Cardella JF, Lewis CA (2003) Society of Interventional Radiology clinical practice guidelines. J Vasc Interv Radiol 14:S199–S202CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Silberzweig JE, Sacks D, Khorsandi AS, Bakal CW, Society of Interventional Radiology Technology Assessment C (2003) Reporting standards for central venous access. J Vasc Interv Radiol 14:S443–S452CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Baskin JL, Pui CH, Reiss U et al (2009) Management of occlusion and thrombosis associated with long-term indwelling central venous catheters. Lancet 374:159–169CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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 33:39–43CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chang DH, Boecker J, Hellmich M, Krug KB (2012) Experiences with ultrasound-guided port implantations via the lateral subclavian vein: a retrospective analysis of 1532 patients. Röfo 184:726–733PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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 32:90–93CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hsieh CC, Weng HH, Huang WS et al (2009) Analysis of risk factors for central venous port failure in cancer patients. World J Gastroenterol 15:4709–4714CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Busch JD, Herrmann J, Heller F et al (2012) Follow-up of radiologically totally implanted central venous access ports of the upper arm: long-term complications in 127,750 catheter-days. AJR Am J Roentgenol 199:447–452CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kawamura J, Nagayama S, Nomura A et al (2008) Long-term outcomes of peripheral arm ports implanted in patients with colorectal cancer. Int J Clin Oncol 13:349–354CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    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 Intervent Radiol 21:230–233CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lenhart M, Chegini M, Gmeinwieser J, Manke C, Feuerbach S (1998) Radiologic implantation of central venous portal systems in the forearm. Röfo 169:189–194PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Marcy PY, Magne N, Castadot P et al (2007) Is radiologic placement of an arm port mandatory in oncology patients?: analysis of a large bi-institutional experience. Cancer 110:2331–2338CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gebauer B, Teichgraber U, Werk M, Wagner HJ (2007) Periinterventional prophylactic antibiotics in radiological port catheter implantation. Röfo 179:804–810PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    De Cicco M, Matovic M, Balestreri L et al (1997) Central venous thrombosis: an early and frequent complication in cancer patients bearing long-term silastic catheter. A prospective study. Thromb Res 86:101–113CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Horne MK 3rd, May DJ, Alexander HR et al (1995) Venographic surveillance of tunneled venous access devices in adult oncology patients. Ann Surg Oncol 2:174–178CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Maas R, Nicolas V, Mugge-Hamann U, Steiner P (1995) Phlebography of the upper extremity. I. The technic and findings in 230 studies. Röfo 162:33–38PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Caers J, Fontaine C, Vinh-Hung V et al (2005) Catheter tip position as a risk factor for thrombosis associated with the use of subcutaneous infusion ports. Support Care Cancer 13:325–331CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Burbridge B, Stoneham G, Szkup P, Otani R, Kriegler S (2013) Catheter fracture and embolization associated with arm implantation of the cook vital port. Can Assoc Radiol J 64:269–273CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Silas AM, Perrich KD, Hoffer EK, McNulty NJ (2010) Complication rates and outcomes of 536 implanted subcutaneous chest ports: do rates differ based on the primary operator's level of training? Acad Radiol 17:464–467CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Moritz Wildgruber
    • 1
  • Sebastian Borgmeyer
    • 1
  • Bernhard Haller
    • 2
  • Heike Jansen
    • 3
  • Jochen Gaa
    • 1
  • Marion Kiechle
    • 3
  • Reinhard Meier
    • 1
  • Johannes Ettl
    • 3
  • Hermann Berger
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, Klinikum Rechts der IsarTechnische Universität MünchenMünchenGermany
  2. 2.Department of Medical Statistics and Epidemiology, Klinikum Rechts der IsarTechnische Universität MünchenMunichGermany
  3. 3.Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Klinikum Rechts der IsarTechnische Universität MünchenMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations