Image-Guided Placement of Port Catheters: Is There an Increased Risk of Infection if the Port is Immediately Accessed and Used?

Purpose To compare complication rates in patients who have port-a-catheters inserted and left accessed for immediate use and those who have ports inserted but not accessed. Methods In this retrospective, IRB-approved study, medical records of patients who received a port catheter between 9/2009 and...

Full description

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Published in:	The journal of vascular access Vol. 14; no. 2; pp. 170 - 174
Main Authors:	Salazar, Gloria, Yeddula, Kalpana, Wicky, Stephan, Oklu, Ramhi, Ganguli, Suvranu, Waltman, Arthur C., Walker, Thomas G, Kalva, Sanjeeva P.
Format:	Journal Article
Language:	English
Published:	London, England SAGE Publications 01-04-2013
Subjects:	Adult Aged Aged, 80 and over Catheterization, Central Venous - adverse effects Catheterization, Central Venous - instrumentation Central Venous Catheters - adverse effects Female Humans Male Middle Aged Prosthesis-Related Infections - etiology Radiography, Interventional Renal Dialysis Retrospective Studies Risk Factors Time Factors Young Adult Catheter-related infection Ports Chemotherapy Vascular access Interventional radiology Central venous catheterization
Online Access:	Get full text
Tags:	Add Tag No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

Description
Summary:	Purpose To compare complication rates in patients who have port-a-catheters inserted and left accessed for immediate use and those who have ports inserted but not accessed. Methods In this retrospective, IRB-approved study, medical records of patients who received a port catheter between 9/2009 and 2/2010 were reviewed. The data collected included patient demographics, diagnosis, procedure and complications. The patients were categorized into two groups: accessed (patients in whom the port was accessed with a Huber needle for immediate intravenous use and the patient left the procedure area with needle indwelling) and control (patients in whom the ports were not accessed). Complications were classified according to Society of Interventional Radiology guidelines. Results are given as mean ±SD. Statistical analysis was performed with student t test and statistical significance was considered at P<.05. Results A total of 467 ports were placed in 465 patients (Men: 206); 10.7% in the accessed group (n=50, age: 60±13.9) and 89.3% in the control group (n=417, age: 59±13.5). There were no statistically significant differences in patient demographics between the groups. The overall complication rate was 0.6% (n=3). Two complications (hematoma causing skin necrosis and thrombosis of the port) occurred in the control group and one (infection) in the accessed group. Infection rates after procedures were 2% (1/50) in the accessed group and 0% (0/417) in the control group. There was no statistically significant difference in overall complication (P=.1) and infection (P=.1) rates among the groups. Conclusions Leaving the port accessed immediately after placement does not increase the risk of infection or other complications.
Bibliography:	ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23
ISSN:	1129-7298 1724-6032
DOI:	10.5301/jva.5000110