Clinical benefit of power-injectable port systems: a prospective observational study

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

Simple Summary

A chest CT via central vein enhancement not only eliminates peripheral vein regurgitation but also provides better image quality that facilitates precise clinical staging. A chest CT via central vein enhancement may be considered after tissue proof in order to better discriminate disease severity.

Abstract

The differences in chest computed tomography (CT) image quality may affect the tumor stage. The aim of this study was to compare the image quality and accuracy of chest CT via central vein and peripheral vein enhancement. Fifty consecutive patients were enrolled from a tertiary medical center in Taiwan from May 2016 to March 2019. All the patients received a chest CT via central vein enhancement prior to neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiation in order to compare the chest CT that was obtained via the peripheral vein. In addition, blind independent central reviews of chest CT via central vein and peripheral vein enhancement were conducted. For T and N stage, chest CT via central vein enhancement had a greater consistency with endoscopic ultrasonography and positron-emission tomography-computed tomography findings (kappa coefficients 0.4471 and 0.5564, respectively). In addition, chest CT via central vein enhancement also showed excellent agreement in the blind independent central review (kappa coefficient 0.9157). The changes in the T and N stage resulted in stage migration in 16 patients. Chest CT via central vein enhancement eliminated peripheral vein regurgitation and also provided more precise clinical staging. This study is registered under the registered NCT number 02887261.

Power contrast injections through a totally implantable venous power port: A retrospective multicenter study

Objectives

To evaluate the feasibility and safety of power injection of contrast media through totally implantable venous power ports during computed tomography scans in oncologic patients.

Methods

The study population consisted of 417 patients who underwent computed tomography scan through a totally implantable venous power port. Clinical data were examined. Logistic regression analysis was used to assess the associations between clinical covariables and computed tomography scan failure.

Results

Successful computed tomography scans were achieved in 534 of 540 examinations (98.9%). Logistic regression analysis showed that contrast media above a 350 concentration was significantly associated with computed tomography scan failure (95% confidence interval: 1.01–1.13, p = 0.012). No major complications were noted.

Conclusions

Power injection of contrast media through a totally implantable venous power port for computed tomography examination is feasible and safe. This procedure provides an acceptable alternative in oncologic patients with inadequate peripheral intravenous access when computed tomography examination with contrast enhancement is needed.

Best practice for using ports and non-coring needles

Ports are predominately inserted into oncology patients, but their use is becoming increasingly popular for other indications, such as cystic fibrosis. These devices not only provide patients and health professionals with reliable vascular access, but also preserve vessel health for future use. This article explores the additional equipment required to be able to access ports. It reiterates the need for education on the use of these devices, as this will help increase their longevity

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

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.

Endovascular management of the peripherally inserted central venous catheter iatrogenic pinch-off syndrome: A case report

The recent increase in the number of patients with implanted peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) requires physicians to be familiar with rare and unusual complication–pinch-off syndrome (POS). We present a case of a 40-years-old female with human epidermal growth factor receptor type 2 (HER2)–positive breast cancer and implanted Groshong PICC (BARD). The patient was admitted for an elective chest and abdomen CT angiography control after finishing her trastuzumab and paclitaxel chemotherapy course a month earlier. Immediately after the contrast media power injection, the PICC line was embolized to the right segmental pulmonary artery. Due to the low complications rate and early patient ambulation percutaneous foreign body retrieval is a primary option for the pinch-off syndrome, especially in frail, and vulnerable cancer patients. This case underscores the feasibility and safety of percutaneous venous interventions in patients with embolized venous infusion devices.

Randomized Clinical Trial Evaluating Complications and Complication-Related Removal of Arm-Situated Power-Injectable and Non-Power-Injectable Totally Implanted Venous Access Devices among Cancer Patients

PURPOSE

To evaluate the hypothesis that power-injectable (PI) totally implanted venous access devices (TIVADs) situated in the arm are associated with more frequent complications and complication-related removal than non-power-injectable (NPI) arm TIVADs among adult cancer patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this single-center trial, 211 adult chemotherapy patients were randomized to receive either a PI or a NPI arm TIVAD. Follow-up involved a standardized telephone interview 1 week after insertion, followed by a chest X-ray, arm X-ray, and Doppler ultrasound at 3 months and 12 months. Online complication reporting was also provided by patients and care providers for a minimum of 1 year. The primary end point was removal for port-related complications; the secondary end point was the occurrence of any port-related complication.

RESULTS

Forty-two complications occurred (19.9% of patients), precipitating the removal of 6 PI ports and 7 standard ports. Time-to-removal did not differ between TIVAD types (hazard ratio 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.25-2.24; P = .61). Complications were related to thrombosis, infection, or mechanical issues, with no statistical difference between groups for overall occurrence (23.1% vs 17.0%, odds ratio 1.47, 95% CI 0.74-2.92; P = .27); however, by type of complication, thrombosis occurred more frequently among PI TIVAD patients (15.2% vs 6.1%, odds ratio 2.79, 95% CI 1.04-7.44; P = .03).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no difference in port-related complication occurrence or complication-related removal when using the arm PI port compared with the NPI port among cancer patients.

Systematic review of the safety and efficacy of contrast injection via venous catheters for contrast-enhanced computed tomography

•

In ICU patients, contrast injection via central venous catheters is a safe alternative to peripheral injection.

•

Implementing a safety protocol before power injection via central venous catheters is advisable.

•

The quality of scans varies and remains not sufficiently investigated in scans with higher flow rates.

Objective

To examine the safety and efficacy of contrast injection through a central venous catheter (CVC) for contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT).

Methods

A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed. Studies were deemed eligible if they reported on the use of CVCs for contrast administration. Selected articles were assessed for their relevance and risk of bias. Articles with low relevance and high risk of bias or both were excluded. Data from included articles was extracted.

Results

Seven studies reported on the use of CVCs for contrast administration. Catheter rupture did not occur in any study. The incidence of dislocation ranged from 2.2-15.4%. Quality of scans was described in three studies, with less contrast enhancement of pulmonary arteries and the thoracic aorta in two studies, and average or above average quality in one study. Four other studies used higher flowrates, but did not report quality of scans.

Conclusion

Contrast injection via CVCs can be performed safely for CECT when using a strict protocol. Quality of scans depended on multiple factors like flow rate, indication of the scan, and cardiac output of the patient. In each patient, an individual evaluation whether to use the CVC as access for contrast media should be made, while bolus tracking may be mandatory in most cases.

Complications after implantation of subcutaneous central venous ports (PowerPortⓇ)

BACKGROUND

The aim of our study was revised as follows: to clarify the postoperative complications of multifunctional central venous ports and the risk factors for such complications to promote the safe use of the PowerPort system in the hospital.

METHODS

The study group comprised 132 patients in whom implantable central venous access ports (PowerPort^Ⓡ) were placed in our hospital from March 2014 through December 2015. The approach used for port placement was the subclavian vein in 43 patients (33%), the internal jugular vein in 87 patients (66%), and the femoral vein in 2 patients (1%).

RESULTS

Postoperative complications occurred in 8 patients (6%). The catheter was removed because of infection in 4 patients and catheter kinking in 1 patient. Port extravasation occurred in 3 patients. No patient had catheter pinch-off. The mean operation time was 74 min (range, 32 to 171). No patients had intraoperative bleeding or pneumothorax. Benign disease was a risk factor for postoperative complications (p = 0.009).

CONCLUSION

PowerPort is a multifunctional port. Benign disease was a risk factor for postoperative complications. Because many types of subcutaneously implanted ports are used in our hospital, we had to inform the hospital staff about the functions of PowerPort.

Apparent migration of implantable port devices: normal variations in consideration of BMI

PURPOSE

To evaluate the extent of normal variation in implantable port devices between supine fluoroscopy and upright chest x-ray in relation to body mass index (BMI) based on three different measurement methods.

METHODS

Retrospectively, 80 patients with implanted central venous access port systems from 2012-01-01 until 2013-12-31 were analyzed. Three parameters (two quantitative and one semi-quantitative) were determined to assess port positions: projection of port capsule to anterior ribs (PCP) and intercostal spaces, ratio of extra- and intravascular catheter portions (EX/IV), normalized distance of catheter tip to carina (nCTCD). Changes were analyzed for males and females and normal-weight and overweight patients using analysis of variance with Bonferroni-corrected pairwise comparison.

RESULTS

PCP revealed significantly greater changes in chest x-rays in overweight women than in the other groups (p<0.001, F-test). EX/IV showed a significantly higher increase in overweight women than normal-weight women and men and overweight men (p<0.001). nCTCD showed a significantly greater increase in overweight women than overweight men (p = 0.0130). There were no significant differences between the other groups. Inter- and intra-observer reproducibility was high (Cronbach alpha of 0.923-1.0) and best for EX/IV.

CONCLUSIONS

Central venous port systems show wide normal variations in the projection of catheter tip and port capsule. In overweight women apparent catheter migration is significantly greater compared with normal-weight women and with men. The measurement of EX/IV and PCP are straightforward methods, quick to perform, and show higher reproducibility than measurement of catheter tip-to-carina distance.

Power-injectable ports: safety during placement, therapeutic use, and contrast administration during computed tomography procedures

PURPOSE

To determine the safety of power-injectable ports during placement, therapeutic use, and administration of intravenous contrast material using automated mechanical injectors.

METHODS

This retrospective, single institution study examined all patients undergoing placement of a power-injectable port between May 1, 2006 and June 30, 2010, with follow-up data collected through October 31, 2010. Electronic records and PACS were searched for patient demographics, placement indication, device placed, placement site, attending operator, and complications. The number of CECT scans performed for patients with indwelling ports, rate of port access for such studies, and contrast extravasation or device failure events during power injection of contrast were recorded and compared to the results of all other methods of venous access for CECT scans.

RESULTS

In total, 313 ports were placed in 307 patients. Device dwell time ranged from 3 to 1506 days with a mean of 577. A total of 20 (6.5%) complications were identified during the study period, all of which were late. There was no statistically significant difference in complication rates between five attending operators. Patients with ports underwent 676 CECT scans during which the port was injected 142 times (20.9%). Neither extravasation nor device failure occurred during any scan, yielding no statistically significant difference when compared to the results of other venous access methods.

CONCLUSIONS

Power-injectable tunneled catheters with attached subcutaneous ports are safe with low rates of complication during placement and dwell time. Power injection of contrast through these ports may be as safe as power injection using other venous access methods.