Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background An implantable port device provides an easily accessible central route for long-term chemotherapy. Venous catheter migration is one of the rare complications of venous port implantation. It can lead to side effects such as pain in the neck, shoulder, or ear, venous thrombosis, and even life-threatening neurologic problems. To date, there are few published studies that discuss such complications. Methods This retrospective study of venous port implantation in a single center, a Taiwan hospital, was conducted from January 2011 to March 2013. Venous port migration was recorded along with demographic and characteristics of the patients. Results Of 298 patients with an implantable import device, venous port migration had occurred in seven, an incidence rate of 2.3%. All seven were male and had received the Bard port Fr 6.6 which had smaller size than TYCO port Fr 7.5 and is made of silicon. Significantly, migration occurred in male patients (P = 0.0006) and in those with lung cancer (P = 0.004). Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that lung cancer was a significant risk factor for port migration (odds ratio: 11.59; P = 0.0059). The migration rate of the Bard port Fr 6.6 was 6.7%. The median time between initial venous port implantation and port migration was 35.4 days (range, 7 to 135 days) and 71.4% (5/7) of patients had port migration within 30 days after initial port implantation. Conclusions Male sex and lung cancer are risk factors for venous port migration. The type of venous port is also an important risk factor. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]