Long-term results of radiologic placement of a central vein access device

被引:22
作者
Beheshti, MV
Protzer, WR
Tomlinson, TL
Martinek, E
Baatz, LA
Collins, MS
机构
[1] USAF, Wright Patterson Med Ctr, Dept Radiol, Wright Patterson AFB, OH 45433 USA
[2] USAF, Wright Patterson Med Ctr, Dept Oncol, Div Internal Med, Wright Patterson AFB, OH 45433 USA
关键词
D O I
10.2214/ajr.170.3.9490964
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
OBJECTIVE. We describe our long-term experience with radiologic implantation of the Peripheral Access System (PAS) Port venous access device. Technical efficacy and complications are documented and compared with surgical and radiologic series involving other long-term venous access devices. SUBJECTS AND METHODS. Fifty-two PAS-Port catheters were implanted in 51 patients during a 30-month period. All procedures took place in the angiography suite and were performed by interventional radiologists with imaging guidance. Patients were followed up through the oncology clinic or the clinic that originally referred the patient. The durability of the catheter was evaluated, and complications were recorded during the study period. RESULTS. Fifty-two ports have been indwelling for a total of 18,357 patient-days. The mean time of implantation was 372 days, with a range of 30-825 days. Technical success in implanting the device was 100%. Device-related sepsis occurred in one patient (2%), superficial thrombophlebitis in one patient (2%), skin site dehiscence iri one patient (2%), and deep vein thrombosis in one patient (2%). No instances of catheter occlusion occurred, and all catheters retained the ability to aspirate blood throughout their use. The overall complication rate was 8% (0.22/1000 patient days). CONCLUSION. Radiologic placement of this device is safe and effective. It offers many patients a superior alternative to surgically implanted chest wall ports. Complications are fewer, and chances for technical success are greater. In circumstances where cosmesis is deemed highly important, the PAS-Port device may be preferable to tunneled venous access catheters.
引用
收藏
页码:731 / 734
页数:4
相关论文
共 21 条
  • [1] BECTON DL, 1988, CANCER, V61, P376, DOI 10.1002/1097-0142(19880115)61:2<376::AID-CNCR2820610229>3.0.CO
  • [2] 2-Y
  • [3] IMPLANTATION OF PAS PORT VENOUS ACCESS DEVICE IN THE FOREARM UNDER FLUOROSCOPIC GUIDANCE
    BRANTZAWADZKI, M
    ANTHONY, M
    MERCER, EC
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 1993, 160 (05) : 1127 - 1128
  • [4] BROTHERS TE, 1988, SURG GYNECOL OBSTET, V166, P295
  • [5] BROVIAC JW, 1973, SURG GYNECOL OBSTET, V136, P602
  • [6] A COST-EFFECTIVE PERIPHERAL VENOUS PORT SYSTEM PLACED AT THE BEDSIDE
    FINNEY, R
    ALBRINK, MH
    HART, MB
    ROSEMURGY, AS
    [J]. JOURNAL OF SURGICAL RESEARCH, 1992, 53 (01) : 17 - 19
  • [8] GILSDORF JR, 1989, SURGERY, V106, P37
  • [9] COMPARISON OF A TOTALLY IMPLANTABLE ACCESS DEVICE FOR CHEMOTHERAPY (PORT-A-CATH) AND LONG-TERM PERCUTANEOUS CATHETERIZATION (BROVIAC)
    GREENE, FL
    MOORE, W
    STRICKLAND, G
    MCFARLAND, J
    [J]. SOUTHERN MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1988, 81 (05) : 580 - 583
  • [10] TOTALLY IMPLANTED SYSTEM FOR INTRAVENOUS CHEMOTHERAPY IN PATIENTS WITH CANCER
    GYVES, J
    ENSMINGER, W
    NIEDERHUBER, J
    LIEPMAN, M
    COZZI, E
    DOAN, K
    DAKHIL, S
    WHEELER, R
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 1982, 73 (06) : 841 - 845