Port REMoval Outcomes (PREMO) study: Patients’ experiences with a Totally Implantable Venous Access Device: A questionnaire at device removal

Abstract

Background:

Totally Implantable Venous Access Devices (TIVADs) are commonly used for intravenous chemotherapy administration and may remain in place depending on the likelihood of disease relapse. Regular flushing is required to maintain patency, although there is no established consensus on the optimal interval between maintenance sessions, with some clinicians extending or omitting the procedure. While TIVADs are generally well-accepted, patients may experience physical discomfort or psychological stress, which are assessed through Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs). This study aims to evaluate the complete TIVAD experience, from insertion to removal, with a particular focus on the maintenance period, as part of the Port REMoval Outcomes (PREMO) study.

Methods:

A cross-sectional survey was conducted at University Hospitals Leuven, Belgium between 2019 and 2022. Adult patients with chest TIVADs, planned for an elective removal, completed the Leuven Patient Reported Experiences at Port Removal (Leuven PREP) a self-reported, self-developed 27-item questionnaire.

Results:

A total of 100 oncology patients completed the questionnaire, with a mean age of 60.9 years and a median TIVAD duration of 2093 days. Most patients reported low insertion pain (median NRS score = 2), while emotional and psychological impacts were generally minimal, with only 1% expressing constant fear. Local discomfort was mentioned, with 24.5% reporting a bump and 12% experiencing pain during needle insertion; 10% experienced frequent cosmetic issues. TIVAD maintenance adherence was limited to 70.7% following the flushing regimen, and 61.2% found extending the maintenance period valuable. The removal procedure was well-received, with 60.2% reporting it was better than expected, and overall patient satisfaction was high, with a median score of 8/10.

Conclusion:

Patients expressed high satisfaction with low impact on comfort, psychological state and physical well-being. Maintenance experiences varied, highlighting the need for further investigation and a validated comprehensive questionnaire.

Registration number:

NCT03948958.

Keywords

TIVAD patient-reported outcomes patient experiences cancer questionnaire

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Wang

Zhao

Wan

GM.

Prolong the flushing and locking interval of TIVAD is feasible in COVID-19: an overview of systematic reviews. J Vasc Access 2023; 24: 1253–1259.

Dal Molin

Guerretta

Mazzufero

, et al. The management of totally implanted venous ports in the ambulatory oncologic patient. J Vasc Access 2009; 10: 22–26.

Johansson

Engervall

Björvell

, et al. Patients’ perceptions of having a central venous catheter or a totally implantable subcutaneous port system-results from a randomised study in acute leukaemia. Support Care Cancer 2009; 17: 137–143.

Marcy

Schiappa

Ferrero

, et al. Patient satisfaction and acceptance of their totally implanted central venous catheter: a French prospective multicenter study. J Vasc Access 2017; 18: 390–395.

National Quality Forum. Patient reported outcomes (PROs) in performance measurement. Washington, DC: National Quality Forum, 2013.

Moons

Norekvål

Arbelo

, et al. Placing patient-reported outcomes at the centre of cardiovascular clinical practice: implications for quality of care and management. Eur Heart J 2023; 44: 3405–3422.

Maurer

Beck

Hamm

, et al. Central venous port catheters: evaluation of patients’ satisfaction with implantation under local anesthesia. J Vasc Access 2009; 10: 27–32.

Ignatov

Hoffman

Smith

, et al. An 11-year retrospective study of totally implanted central venous access ports: complications and patient satisfaction. Eur J Surg Oncol 2009; 35: 241–246.

Singh

Agarwal

Nanda

, et al. Morbidity of chemotherapy administration and satisfaction in breast cancer patients: a comparative study of totally implantable venous access device (TIVAD) versus peripheral venous access usage. World J Surg 2014; 38: 1084–1092.

10.

Goossens

Vrebos

Stas

, et al. Central vascular access devices in oncology and hematology considered from a different point of view: how do patients experience their vascular access ports? J Infus Nurs 2005; 28: 61–67.

11.

Burbridge

Goyal

Quality-of-life assessment: arm TIVAD versus chest TIVAD. J Vasc Access 2016; 17: 527–534.

12.

Kreis

Loehberg

Lux

, et al. Patients’ attitudes to totally implantable venous access port systems for gynecological or breast malignancies. Eur J Surg Oncol 2007; 33: 39–43.

13.

Douchy

Hompes

Maleux

, et al. Port REMoval Outcomes (PREMO) study: a pilot study for functional, microbial, radiological and macroscopic assessment of totally implantable venous access devices. J Vasc Access 2025.

14.

Friedel

Siegel

Kirstein

, et al. Measuring patient experience and patient satisfaction-how are we doing it and why does it matter? A comparison of European and U.S. American approaches. Healthcare (Basel) 2023; 11: 797.

15.

Rhoten

BA.

Body image disturbance in adults treated for cancer - a concept analysis. J Adv Nurs 2016; 72: 1001–1011.

16.

van den Bosch

van de Ven

Hulsker

CCC

, et al. Satisfaction of paediatric oncology patients, survivors, and nurses with the position of their totally implantable venous access port (SPACE-study). J Pediatr Surg 2024; 59: 1746–1753.

17.

Babu

Suresh Babu

Lokanatha

, et al. Outcomes, cost comparison, and patient satisfaction during long-term central venous access in cancer patients: experience from a Tertiary Care Cancer Institute in South India. Indian J Med Paediatr Oncol 2016; 37: 232–238.

18.

Burbridge

Lim

Dwernychuk

, et al. Comparison of the quality of life of patients with breast or colon cancer with an arm vein port (TIVAD) versus a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC). Curr Oncol 2021; 28: 1495–1506.

19.

Moss

Bodenham

, et al. Central venous access devices for the delivery of systemic anticancer therapy (CAVA): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2021; 398: 403–415.

20.

Liu

Jiang

, et al. Chinesization of the quality of life assessment, venous device-port, and its reliability and validity tests for patients with breast cancer. J Vasc Access 2020; 21: 983–989.

21.

Clatot

Fontanilles

Lefebvre

, et al. Randomised phase II trial evaluating the safety of peripherally inserted catheters versus implanted port catheters during adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with early breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 2020; 126: 116–124.

22.

Vermeulin

Lahbib

Lottin

, et al. Patients’ perception and attitude to totally implantable venous access for urologic or digestive cancer: a cross-sectional study. Bull Cancer 2019; 106: 959–968.

23.

Taxbro

Hammarskjöld

Thelin

, et al. Clinical impact of peripherally inserted central catheters vs implanted port catheters in patients with cancer: an open-label, randomised, two-centre trial. Br J Anaesth 2019; 122: 734–741.

24.

Çil

Öcal

Eldem

, et al. Trapezius port placement in patients with breast cancer: long-term follow-up and quality-of-life assessment. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2019; 30: 69–73.

25.

Fang

Yang

Song

, et al. Comparison of three types of central venous catheters in patients with malignant tumor receiving chemotherapy. Patient Prefer Adherence 2017; 11: 1197–1204.

26.

Boyd

Paul

, et al. Hickman catheter and implantable port devices for the delivery of chemotherapy: a phase II randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation. Br J Cancer 2016; 114: 979–985.

27.

Yagi

Sakamoto

Nakai

, et al. A questionnaire-based assessment of the anxiety, satisfaction and discomfort experienced by Japanese cancer patients during the use of central venous ports. Intern Med 2016; 55: 2393–2399.

28.

Liberale

El Houkayem

Viste

, et al. Evaluation of the perceptions and cosmetic satisfaction of breast cancer patients undergoing totally implantable vascular access device (TIVAD) placement. Support Care Cancer 2016; 24: 5035–5040.

29.

Cavallaro

Iorio

Iossa

, et al. A prospective evaluation on external jugular vein cut-down approach for TIVAD implantation. World J Surg Oncol 2015; 13: 243.

30.

Patel

Jain

Kumar

, et al. Comparison of peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICC) versus subcutaneously implanted port-chamber catheters by complication and cost for patients receiving chemotherapy for non-haematological malignancies. Support Care Cancer 2014; 22: 121–128.

31.

Minichsdorfer

Füreder

Mähr

, et al. A cross-sectional study of patients’ satisfaction with totally implanted access ports. Clin J Oncol Nurs 2016; 20: 175–180.

32.

McIntosh

Walker

GM.

Patients’ experience of portacaths in cystic fibrosis: questionnaire-based study. Arch Dis Child 2015; 100: 659–661.

33.

Goltz

Petritsch

Kirchner

, et al. Percutaneous image-guided implantation of totally implantable venous access ports in the forearm or the chest? A patients’ point of view. Support Care Cancer 2013; 21: 505–510.

34.

Nagel

Teichgräber

Kausche

, et al. Satisfaction and quality of life: a survey-based assessment in patients with a totally implantable venous port system. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 2012; 21: 197–204.

35.

Marcy

Magné

Castadot

, et al. 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 2005; 92: 61–67.

36.

Ivziku

Gualandi

Pesce

, et al. Adult oncology patients’ experiences of living with a central venous catheter: a systematic review and meta-synthesis. Support Care Cancer 2022; 30: 3773–3791.

37.

Pinto

Granziera

Cagol

, et al. Totally implantable venous access devices: a randomized controlled trial on the effect of psychological support on quality of life and body image (BI-PORT). Front Psychol 2021; 12: 703497.

38.

Pinelli

Barbani

Defilippo

, et al. Quality of life in women with breast cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy: comparison between PICC and PICC-port. Breast Cancer 2024; 31: 945–954.