Peripheral venous access ports: outcomes analysis in 109 patients
| Autor: | John L. Nosher, Leonard J. Bodner, Rajiv Biswal, Randall L. Siegel, Kaushik M. Patel, Robert Tokarz, Christopher Gribbin |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2000 |
| Předmět: |
Adult
Male medicine.medical_specialty Catheterization Central Venous Catheters Indwelling Foreign-Body Migration Risk Factors medicine Humans Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging Vein Aged Retrospective Studies Urokinase Aged 80 and over Venous Thrombosis medicine.diagnostic_test business.industry Incidence Interventional radiology Bacterial Infections Middle Aged medicine.disease Prognosis Thrombosis Surgery Venous thrombosis Catheter medicine.anatomical_structure Treatment Outcome Female Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine Complication business medicine.drug Blood sampling |
| Zdroj: | Cardiovascular and interventional radiology. 23(3) |
| ISSN: | 0174-1551 |
| Popis: | Purpose: To perform a retrospective outcomes analysis of central venous catheters with peripheral venous access ports, with comparison to published data. Methods: One hundred and twelve central venous catheters with peripherally placed access ports were placed under sonographic guidance in 109 patients over a 4-year period. Ports were placed for the administration of chemotherapy, hyperalimentation, long-term antibiotic therapy, gammaglobulin therapy, and frequent blood sampling. A vein in the upper arm was accessed in each case and the catheter was passed to the superior vena cava or right atrium. Povidone iodine skin preparation was used in the first 65 port insertions. A combination of Iodophor solution and povidone iodine solution was used in the last 47 port insertions. Forty patients received low-dose (1 mg) warfarin sodium beginning the day after port insertion. Three patients received higher doses of warfarin sodium for preexistent venous thrombosis. Catheter performance and complications were assessed and compared with published data. Results: Access into the basilic or brachial veins was obtained in all cases. Ports remained functional for a total of 28,936 patient days. The port functioned in 50% of patients until completion of therapy, or the patient’s expiration. Ports were removed prior to completion of therapy in 18% of patients. Eleven patients (9.9% of ports placed) suffered an infectious complication (0.38 per thousand catheter-days)—in nine, at the port implantation site, in two along the catheter. In all 11 instances the port was removed. Port pocket infection in the early postoperative period occurred in three patients (4.7%) receiving a Betadine prep vs two patients (4.2%) receiving a standard O.R. prep. This difference was not statistically significant (p=0.9). Venous thrombosis occurred in three patients (6.8%) receiving warfarin sodium and in two patients (3%) not receiving warfarin sodium. This difference was not statistically significant (p=0.6). Aspiration occlusion occurred in 13 patients (11.7%). Intracatheter urokinase was infused in eight of these patients and successfully restored catheter function in all but two instances. These complication rates are comparable to or better than those reported with chest ports. Conclusion: Peripheral ports for long-term central venous access placed by interventional radiologists in the interventional radiology suite are as safe and as effective as chest ports. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
Full text from SpringerLink