Explanation of Totally Implantable Venous Access Ports of the Forearm: Reasons for Removal and Observed Complications

Analysis of peripheral central venous access ports at the forearm: An observational study

The aim of this study was to analyse the characteristics of central venous catheters with brachial-implanted reservoirs and the complications associated with their use over a 4-years period. This observational study was carried out in an onco-haematological day hospital in Spain. Information was collected about 125 catheters inserted in patients requiring intravenous chemotherapy. There were more catheters implanted in women than men and the mean age was 58.6 years. Seventy of the implanted catheters were made of polyurethane and 55 of silicone. Left laterality prevailed with a mean catheter dwell-time of 347.1 days. A total of 164 complications were registered, 124 of them came from blood draws, where the most frequent complication was "inability to withdraw, ability to infuse". Forty complications were associated with the administration of treatments. Furthermore, there were 21 catheter removals, caused by several other complications different from those mentioned before. Statistically significant differences were found when associating types of catheters, laterality, blood draws and administration of treatments. Results showed how silicone ports would be more appropriate for patients who carry these types or ports than polyurethane because they reduce the number of complications causes by thrombosis.

Port-a-Cath complicated by infection or migration not removed by manual traction: usefulness of cardiac pacing leads extraction techniques

BACKGROUND

Long-term use of Port-a-Caths (PACs) is related to device-related delayed complications. The aim of this study is to describe the high success rate and safety of cardiac pacing lead extraction techniques used for PACs complicated by infection or migration and not removed by manual traction.

METHODS

During a 13-year period (1997-2010), 19 consecutive PAC recipients (54.1±13 years, 11 females) were referred to our hospital for PAC-related delayed complications and PACs not removable by manual traction (mean dwelling time 29.3±31 months).

RESULTS

PAC implantation indications included gastrointestinal cancer (21%), breast cancer (15.7%), other malignant diseases (52.6%), and nonmalignant diseases (10.5%). PAC removal indications were breakdown due to subclavian crush (63.1%), breakdown due to unsuccessful previous removal attempt (21%), sepsis (10.5%), or malfunction (5.3%). Removal of fractured free-floating catheters (16) migrated toward the venous blood course was attempted by tool-guided traction in all cases except 1 in whom mechanical dilation was necessary. For the 3 intact ones (2 infected and one malfunctioning) we used tool-guided traction and single-sheath mechanical dilation, depending on the vascular/cardiac-catheter setting. By using multiple venous approaches we removed 18 catheters completely and 1 partially, achieving clinical success in all of the patients. The most commonly used venous approach was transfemoral (TFA; 73.6%), followed by the original venous entry site approach (VEA; 15.7%) and internal transjugular approach (ITA; 10.5%). No major or minor complications were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

In experienced centers, cardiac pacing lead extraction techniques may be considered as an additional, efficacious, safe option for extraction of otherwise nonremovable entrapped PACs before surgery.

Identification of Risk Factors for Catheter-Related Thrombosis in Patients with Totally Implantable Venous Access Ports in the Forearm

Purpose

To identify risk factors for the development of catheter-related thrombosis (CRT) in patients with totally implant-able venous access ports (TIVAP) in the forearm, and to analyze the effect of prophylaxis and treatment.

Methods

We retrospectively identified 200 patients (94 men, 106 women, mean age 57.7 +/-14 y) with TIVAP implantation in the forearm between 3/2010 and 11/2010. Type, number of punctures and sonographically defined diameter of the accessed vein were analyzed. Chemotherapy administered prior to the implantation procedure and history of thrombo-embolic events were assessed. Thrombo-embolic prophylaxis (TEP) following port implantation and treatment as well as course of CRT were analyzed.

Results

Twenty-one patients (10.5%) were diagnosed with CRT. Accessed vessels and mean diameter were basilic (n=150, 3.7 mm), brachial (n=39, 3.5 mm) and cephalic (n=11, 3.5 mm) vein. Neither type nor vessel diameter had effect on CRT development (P>.05). Implantation in the left forearm resulted in a significantly higher rate of CRT (P=.04). Ninety-five patients (47.5%) received chemotherapy and 30 patients (15.0%) had a history of thrombosis prior to implantation; both had no effect on development of CRT. Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) was prescribed in 94/200 patients (47.0%) and had no effect on development of CRT (P>.05). Therapeutic anticoagulation with LMWH resulted in clinical improvement in 12/21 patients (57.4%).

Conclusions

TIVAPs of the forearm may be associated with a certain rate of early and late CRT. The simplest vein to puncture should be selected for vascular access. Thrombo-embolic prophylaxis appears to be rather ineffective for prevention of CRT.