Peripheral Venous Access Ports: Outcomes Analysis in 109 Patients

Journal Article · Wed Mar 15 04:00:00 EST 2000 · Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology

DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/S002700010041· OSTI ID:21083656

Bodner, Leonard J; Nosher, John L; Patel, Kaushik M; Siegel, Randall L; Biswal, Rajiv; Gribbin, Christopher E; Tokarz, Robert ^[1]

---

1. Department of Radiology, MEB 404, UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, One Robert Wood Johnson Place, New Brunswick, NJ 08903-0019 (United States)

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, gamma-globulin 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.

• OSTI ID: 21083656
• Journal Information: Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology, Journal Name: Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology Journal Issue: 3 Vol. 23; ISSN 0174-1551; ISSN CAIRDG
• Country of Publication: United States
• Language: English

Related Subjects

62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE
ANTIBIOTICS
BLOOD
CHEMOTHERAPY
CHEST
GLOBULINS
HARBORS
PATIENTS
RADIOLOGY
SKIN
SODIUM
THROMBOSIS
UROKINASE
VEINS