Power-injectable totally implantable venous access devices – analysis of success and complication rates of ultrasound-guided implantation and a patient satisfaction survey

Abstract

Summary. Background: To retrospectively evaluate the success rates, peri-interventional, early and late complications and patient satisfaction associated with power-injectable totally implantable venous access devices (TIVAPs). Patients and methods: Between April 2011 and March 2016, a total of 1,203 TIVAPs were implanted in 1,169 patients. Ultrasound-guided, fluoroscopically controlled implantation was performed through the subclavian or internal jugular vein. The systematic analysis focused on the rate of successful port implantations, the frequency of peri-interventional, early and late complications and on how the experience of the implanting radiologist impacts these parameters. Additionally, a standardized questionnaire was administered to the 102 study patients in a telephone interview to survey their subjective rating of the port implantation. Results: 99.5 % of TIVAPs were implanted successfully. In 4 out of 6 patients, the implantation was repeated successfully at a later time. Complication rates were 1.4 % (0.0512/1.000 catheter days) for peri-interventional, 2.9 % (0.081 per 1,000 catheter days) for early and 8.3 % (0.2288 per 1,000 catheter days) for late complications. The radiologist’s experience level and vein selection did not have a significant impact. Most peri-interventional complications (82.4 %) were of minor severity. The early (61.5 %) and late (65.6 %) complications were more frequently of major severity. Interventions to manage complications comprised port explanation in 46.9 %, conservative therapy in 17.4 % and interventional therapy in 12.2 %. At 1 and 3 months after port placement, the majority were satisfied or very satisfied with the interventional port implantation. Conclusions: Ultrasound-guided, fluoroscopically controlled implantation of TIVAPs is a safe procedure with low complication rates, high success rates and high patient satisfaction.

Difference in Computed Tomography Image Quality between Central Vein and Peripheral Vein Enhancement in Treatment Naive Esophageal Cancer Patients

“…From the literature reviews, preliminary results showed the power port to have a similar complication rate as conventional ports [32,33]. As the power port could serve as entry access for the chemotherapeutic agent and contrast medium, the frequency of venipuncture was much decreased, and the patients' satisfaction were higher than conventional port [34]. In our study, there was no contrast leak during power injection and may be correlated to the low body mass index of our study cohort.…”

Comparison of Two Methods of Removing Totally Implantable Vascular Access Devices- A Single-Center Experience

“…Several studies have con rmed that the merits of the TIVAD are a safe route to the central vein, long-term maintenance, and comfort for the patients in clinical application. [2][3][4][5] At the end of treatment, the removal of TIVADs is a basic and important procedure. Historically, removal of TIVADs is usually conducted by an interventional radiologist or a surgeon.…”