Implanted peripheral arm ports

0

Kawamura et al (2008) suggest that implanted intravenous ports can be placed easily at peripheral sites and can be well maintained with minimal morbidity. They offer a good alternative to implanted chest ports.

Kawamura, J., Nagayama, N., Nomura, A., Itami, A., Okabe, H., Sato, S., Watanabe, G. and Sakai, Y. (2008) Long-term outcomes of peripheral arm ports implanted in patients with colorectal cancer. International Journal of Clinical Oncology. 13(4), p.349-354.

Abstract:

Background: Venous ports are mandatory for chemotherapy in cancer patients because prolonged infusions are required. The aim of this study was to assess the safety of peripheral arm ports for chemotherapy in patients with colorectal cancer.

Methods: A peripheral venous access port was placed in the upper arm in 113 consecutive patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC). All patients received modifi ed FOLFOX (5-fl uorouracil [5-FU]/l-leucovorin [LV]/oxaliplatin [L-OHP]) 6 or FOLFIRI (5-FU/LV/irinotecan hydrochloride [CPT-11]) regimens at least once via the venous access port. All patients were followed up at least once every 2 weeks.

Results: Puncture of the basilic veins was successfully completed under real-time sonographic guidance or radiographic guidance in all patients. The median operative time was 30 min. The cumulative follow-up period was 29 886 catheter days (range, 9–560 days; mean, 264 days). No procedural complications, such as pneumothorax, hemothorax, arterial puncture, or cardiovascular problems, occurred in our series. A total of nine patients (8.0%) had complications. Port-site infection occurred in six patients (5.3%; 0.20 infections per 1000 catheter-days). One patient (0.9%) had an episode of ultrasound-documented deep vein thrombosis in the ipsilateral upper extremity (0.03/1000 catheter-days). Dislocation or migration of the catheter tip occurred in two patients (0.07/1000 catheter-days). A second port was placed in six patients (5.3%) after removal of the first port.

Conclusion: Peripheral arm ports can be maintained with excellent short-and long-term outcomes. Peripheral arm ports are considered to be a good alternative to central venous ports implanted in the chest in patients with MCRC.

Free preview – click here.
Kawamura et al (2008) suggest that implanted intravenous ports can be placed easily at peripheral sites and can be well maintained with minimal morbidity. They offer a good alternative to implanted chest ports.

Kawamura, J., Nagayama, N., Nomura, A., Itami, A., Okabe, H., Sato, S., Watanabe, G. and Sakai, Y. (2008) Long-term outcomes of peripheral arm ports implanted in patients with colorectal cancer. International Journal of Clinical Oncology. 13(4), p.349-354.

Abstract:

Background  Venous ports are mandatory for chemotherapy in cancer patients because prolonged infusions are required. The aim of this study was to assess the safety of peripheral arm ports for chemotherapy in patients with colorectal cancer.

Methods  A peripheral venous access port was placed in the upper arm in 113 consecutive patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC). All patients received modifi ed FOLFOX (5-fl uorouracil [5-FU]/l-leucovorin [LV]/oxaliplatin [L-OHP]) 6 or FOLFIRI (5-FU/LV/irinotecan hydrochloride [CPT-11]) regimens at least once via the venous access port. All patients were followed up at least once every 2 weeks.

Results  Puncture of the basilic veins was successfully completed under real-time sonographic guidance or radiographic guidance in all patients. The median operative time was 30 min. The cumulative follow-up period was 29 886 catheter days (range, 9–560 days; mean, 264 days). No procedural complications, such as pneumothorax, hemothorax, arterial puncture, or cardiovascular problems, occurred in our series. A total of nine patients (8.0%) had complications. Port-site infection occurred in six patients (5.3%; 0.20 infections per 1000 catheter-days). One patient (0.9%) had an episode of ultrasound-documented deep vein thrombosis in the ipsilateral upper extremity (0.03/1000 catheter-days). Dislocation or migration of the catheter tip occurred in two patients (0.07/1000 catheter-days). A second port was placed in six patients (5.3%) after removal of the fi rst port.

Conclusion  Peripheral arm ports can be maintained with excellent short-and long-term outcomes. Peripheral arm ports are considered to be a good alternative to central venous ports implanted in the chest in patients with MCRC.

Free preview – click here.

 

Share.

Comments are closed.

Free Email Updates
Join 5.5K IVTEAM members. Subscribe now and be the first to receive all the latest free updates from IVTEAM!
100% Privacy. We don't spam.