Polyurethane versus silicone catheters for central venous port devices implanted at the forearm.

PURPOSE: We aimed to analyse short and long-term complications of polyurethane (PU) versus silicone catheters used in totally implantable venous-access ports (TIVAPs) implanted at the forearm. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 698 consecutively implanted TIVAPs was performed. Primary end-points were defined as rates of major complications associated with either type of central venous port catheter. Technical success rate, device service interval as well as minor complications not requiring port explantation were defined as secondary end-points. RESULTS: A total of 698 port devices were implanted in 681 patients, 396 equipped with a PU catheter, 302 with a silicone catheter. The technical success rate was 99.9% with no major periprocedural complications. During follow-up a total of 211 complications in 146 patients were observed (1.0/1000 catheter days), 183 occurred associated with PU catheters (1.8/100 catheter days), 28 (0.3/1000 catheter days) with silicone catheters (log rank test p < 0.0001). Catheter-related bloodstream infections as well as thrombotic complications occurred significantly more frequently with PU catheters, while silicone catheters exhibited a trend towards a higher rate of mechanical failure such as disconnection or catheter rupture. Major complications requiring explantation of the device occurred more frequently with PU-based catheters (10.6%) compared to silicone catheter carrying ports (4.6%, log rank test p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: PU catheters are more susceptible to catheter-related infections and exhibit a higher thrombogenicity, compared to silicone catheters. Silicone catheters instead exhibit a trend towards decreased mechanical stability.

Short-term and long-term outcome of radiological-guided insertion of central venous access port devices implanted at the forearm: a retrospective monocenter analysis in 1704 patients.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives are to analyze the technical success rate as well as the short-term and long-term complications of totally implantable venous access ports (TIVAPs) at the forearm. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 1,704 consecutively implanted TIVAPs was performed. Primary endpoints were defined as technical success rate, clinical outcome, device service interval, and rates of major complications. Minor complications not requiring port explantation were defined as secondary endpoints. RESULTS: The technical success rate was 99.2 % with no major complications. During follow-up, a total of 643,200 catheter-days were documented, the mean device service interval was 380.6 days/patient. A total of 243 complications (14.4 %) in 226 patients were observed (0.4/1000 catheter-days), in 140 patients (8.3 %) the port device had to be explanted. Disconnection between the port device and the catheter (1.6 %) was more frequent than fracture (0.8 %) and leakage (0.6 %) of the catheter, which occurred more frequently when the catheter was inserted via the cephalic versus the brachial vein. CONCLUSION: TIVAP implantation at the forearm is a simple and safe procedure with a low rate of early and late complications.