title: Totally implantable venous access devices: evaluation of complications and a prospective comparative study of two different port systems.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Totally implantable venous access devices (TIVADs) are valuable instruments in case prolonged intravenous therapy is required, but implantation and use of these devices are associated with complications. The purpose of this study was to evaluate perioperative and long-term complications associated with TIVADs. In addition, we compared two different types of TIVADs with respect to implantation, care protocol and patients' comfort.
  
  
  METHODS
  In a retrospective study perioperative and long-term complications in a general oncology population were analysed. In a prospective randomized study comparison of two types of TIVADs was carried out.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Perioperative complications occurred in 27 (21.4%) of 126 implanted TIVADs: catheter malposition (16.7%) in 21 patients, pneumothorax (0.8%) in one and haemorrhage (4.0%) in five. Long-term complications appeared in 31 (25.2%) out of 123 TIVADs: thrombosis in 9 (7.3%), especially associated with malposition of the tip of the catheter; infection in 10 (8.1%); extravasation in 2 (1.6%); migration of the catheter tip in 6 (4.8%); pain at reservoir in 3 (2.4%) and inaccessibility of the port in 1 (0.8%). No significant differences were found with respect to implantation, care accessibility and patients' comfort between the two TIVADs.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The use of TIVADs is associated with some risk of serious perioperative and long-term complications. In case of thrombotic complications these systems can be saved with appropriate treatment. Correct positioning of the catheter tip is essential to prevent thrombotic complications. In case of TIVAD-related infectious complications, the possibility of saving the TIVAD depends on the causative microorganism and type of infection. Furthermore, to increase patients' satisfaction with TIVADs they should be well informed about the surgical procedure and possible disadvantages of these devices.
authors: Department of Internal Medicine, University Medical Centre (UMC) Utrecht, F02.126 Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
authors: A
authors: A
authors: Hartkamp
authors: A J
authors: AJ
authors: van Boxtel
authors: B A
authors: BA
authors: Zonnenberg
authors: P O
authors: PO
authors: Witteveen
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000970:Antineoplastic Agents / Q000008:administration & dosage*; D001424:Bacterial Infections / Q000453:epidemiology / Q000209:etiology*; D002404:Catheterization / Q000295:instrumentation*; D002408:Catheters, Indwelling / Q000009:adverse effects*; D004867:Equipment Design; D004869:Equipment Safety; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D015994:Incidence; D015918:Infusion Pumps, Implantable / Q000009:adverse effects*; D008134:Long-Term Care; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009369:Neoplasms / Q000188:drug therapy; D011184:Postoperative Period; D011300:Preoperative Care; D011379:Prognosis; D011446:Prospective Studies; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D012307:Risk Factors; D013927:Thrombosis / Q000209:etiology
chemical_list: D000970:Antineoplastic Agents