There are few studies regarding the use of totally implantable valved ports for chemotherapy. The objective of this study was to analyze the results obtained from consecutive implantation of 350 devices.
Methods
Adult patients submitted to port insertion in veins of the superior vena cava system over a 17-month period (July 2006 to December 2007) were considered. The device used was composed of a titanium and silicone rubber port (Dome Port™; Bard Inc, Salt Lake City, UT) connected to an 8.0 Fr silastic Groshong™ catheter tube. Follow-up was conducted on outpatient data and during clinical readmissions, until the device was removed or the patient died.
Results
Three hundred and fifty devices, total of 74,691 days in situ, were inserted, with a median follow-up of 176 days. There were 11 early complications (3.1%) and 49 late complications (14%), 21 of these (6%) were considered major ones. Early complications comprised four instances of phlebitis of the external jugular, three of pocket infection, two of technical failure and two of ecchymosis. Late complications comprised 33 instances of withdrawal difficulty, 12 of port-related bacteremia, two of deep venous thrombosis, one of occlusion and one of catheter fracture. Out of the 350 catheters implanted, 258 (73.5%) were still being used, 73 (21%) remained in use until the patient died, five (1.5%) were removed at the end of the treatment and 14 (4%) were removed because of complications.
Conclusions
There was a low rate of major complications associated with this valved system justifying its use.
NiederhuberJ.E., EnsmingerW., GyvesJ.W., LiepmanM., DoanK., CozziE.. Totally implanted venous and arterial access system to replace external catheters in cancer treatment.Surgery1982; 92: 706–12.
2.
NanningaA.G., de VriesE.G., WillemseP.H.. Continuous infusion of chemotherapy on an outpatient basis via a totally implanted venous access port.Eur J Cancer1991; 27: 147–9.
3.
MunckA., MalbezinS., BlochJ.. Follow-up of 452 totally implantable vascular devices in cystic fibrosis patients.Eur Respir J2004; 23: 430–4.
4.
DaviesM.G., FeeleyT.M., MooreD.J., ShanikG.D.. Home parenteral nutrition using a totally implanted subcutaneous venous access device.Br J Clin Pract1990; 44: 750.
5.
BiffiR., CorradoF., de BraudF.. Long-term, totally implantable central venous access ports connected to a Groshong catheter for chemotherapy of solid tumours: experience from 178 cases using a single type of device.Eur J Cancer1997; 33: 1190–4.
6.
BiffiR., de BraudF., OrsiF.. 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 Oncol1998; 9: 767–73.
BiffiR., De BraudF., OrsiF.. A randomized, prospective trial of central venous ports connected to standard open-ended or Groshong catheters in adult oncology patients.Cancer2001; 92: 1204–12.
9.
BiffiR., PittirutiM., GilletJ.P.. Valved central venous catheter connected to subcutaneous port: a multicenter phase IV study based on a cohort of 50 oncology patients.J Vasc Access2002; 3: 147–53.
10.
LamontJ.P., McCartyT.M., StephensJ.S.. A randomized trial of valved vs nonvalved implantable ports for vascular access.Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent)2003; 16: 384–7.
11.
CarloJ.T., LamontJ.P., McCartyT.M., LivingstonS., KuhnJ.A.. A prospective randomized trial demonstrating valved implantable ports have fewer complications and lower overall cost than nonvalved implantable ports.Am J Surg2004; 188: 722–7.
12.
HouS.M., WangP.C., SungY.C., LeeH.H., LiuH.T., ChenY.H.. Comparisons of outcomes and survivals for two central venous access port systems.J Surg Oncol2005; 91: 61–6.
13.
LaurenziL., FimianiC., FaglieriN.. Complications with fully implantable venous access systems in oncologic patients.Tumori1996; 82: 232–6.
14.
BrownD.F., MuirheadM.J., TravisP.M., VireS.R., WellerJ., Hauer-JensenM.. Mode of chemotherapy does not affect complications with an implantable venous access device.Cancer1997; 80: 966–72.
15.
KockH.J., PietschM., KrauseU., WilkeH., EiglerF.W.. Implantable vascular access systems: experience in 1500 patients with totally implanted central venous port systems.World J Surg.1998; 22: 12–6.
16.
WoloskerN., YazbekG., NishinariK.. Totally implantable venous catheters for chemotherapy: experience in 500 patients.Sao Paulo Med J2004; 122: 147–51.
17.
CaersJ., FontaineC., Vinh-HungV.. Catheter tip position as a risk factor for thrombosis associated with the use of subcutaneous infusion ports.Support Care Cancer2005; 13: 325–31.
18.
SamarasP., DoldS., BraunJ.. Infectious port complications are more frequent in younger patients with hematologic malignancies than in solid tumor patients.Oncology2008; 74: 237–44.
19.
Di CarloI., BarbagalloF., ToroA., SofiaM., LombardoR., CordioS.. External jugular vein cutdown approach, as a useful alternative, supports the choice of the cephalic vein for totally implantable access device placement.Ann Surg Oncol2005; 12: 570–3.
20.
AldrighettiL., PaganelliM., ArruM., CateriniR., RonzoniM., FerlaG.. Complications of blind placement technique in 980 subcutaneous infusion ports.J Vasc Access2000; 1: 28–32.
21.
ChangH.M., HsiehC.B., HsiehH.F.. An alternative technique for totally implantable central venous access devices. A retrospective study of 1311 cases.Eur J Surg Oncol2006; 32: 90–3.
22.
GebauerB., El-SheikM., VogtM., WagnerH.J.. Combined ultrasound and fluoroscopy guided port catheter implantation - high success and low complication rate.Eur J Radiol2009; 69: 517–22.
23.
BiffiR., OrsiF., PozziS.. Best choice of central venous insertion site for the prevention of catheter-related complications in adult patients who need cancer therapy: a randomized trial.Ann Oncol2009; 20: 935–40.
24.
KurulS., SaipP., AydinT.. Totally implantable venous-access ports: local problems and extravasation injury.Lancet Oncol2002; 3: 684–92.
25.
SurovA., JordanK., BuerkeM.. Port catheter insufficiency: incidence and clinical-radiological correlations.Onkologie2008; 31: 455–61.
26.
LokichJ.J., BotheA.Jr., BenottiP., MooreC.. Complications and management of implanted venous access catheters.J Clin Oncol1985; 3: 710–7.
27.
LeeA.Y.. Treatment of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients.Thromb Res2001; 102: V195–208.
28.
BergqvistD.. Venous thromboembolism in cancer patients: expanding horizons.Semin Thromb Hemost2002; 28(Suppl): 19–23.
29.
VersoM., AgnelliG., BertoglioS.. Enoxaparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism associated with central vein catheter: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized study in cancer patients.J Clin Oncol2005; 23: 4057–62.
30.
CoubanS., GoodyearM., BurnellM.. Randomized placebo-controlled study of low-dose warfarin for the prevention of central venous catheter-associated thrombosis in patients with cancer.J Clin Oncol2005; 23: 4063–9.
31.
LiñaresJ., Sitges-SerraA., GarauJ., PérezJ.L., MartínR.. Pathogenesis of catheter sepsis: a prospective study with quantitative and semiquantitative cultures of catheter hub and segments.J Clin Microbiol1985; 21: 357–60.
32.
AbrahmJ.L., MullenJ.L.. A prospective study of prolonged central venous access in leukemia.JAMA1982; 248: 2868–73.
33.
TorramadéJ.R., CienfuegosJ.A., HernándezJ.L.. The complications of central venous access systems: a study of 218 patients.Eur J Surg1993; 159: 323–7.
34.
BrothersT.E., Von MollL.K., NiederhuberJ.E., RobertsJ.A., Walker-AndrewsS., EnsmingerW.D.. Experience with subcutaneous infusion ports in three hundred patients.Surg Gynecol Obstet1988; 166: 295–301.
