Management of Port Occlusions in Adults: Different-Site Replacement versus Same-Site Salvage.

Published

Journal Article

PURPOSE: To compare the safety and effectiveness of different-site port placement versus same-site port salvage in adult patients with occluded ports. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-five occluded subcutaneous infusion ports (ports) in 95 patients presenting between July 1, 2002, and June 30, 2017, were retrospectively reviewed: 48 (51%) different-site placements (replacements; same-day indwelling port removal and different-site new port placement) and 47 (49%) same-site salvages (salvages; 35 fibrin sheath strippings, 12 over-the-wire exchanges). Demographic information, indication for initial placement and replacement or salvage, procedural details, post-intervention primary catheter patency, and post-intervention port sequelae were recorded. Post-intervention primary catheter patency, and malfunction and infection rates were compared with Kaplan-Meier estimation and the log-rank test, and Fisher exact test, respectively. The association of patient risk factors and port patency was assessed with Cox regression. RESULTS: Median primary catheter patency after replacement was 254 days (interquartile range [IQR], 297) and after salvage was 391 days (IQR, 906) (P = .25). Within the salvage group, median primary catheter patency after stripping was 391 days (IQR, 658) and after exchange was 666 days (IQR, 1412) (P = .08). There was no statistical difference in malfunction (P = .12) and infection (P = .74) rates between the replaced and salvaged groups or in malfunction (P = .09) and infection (P = .1) rates between the exchanged and stripped subgroups. None of the patient or catheter characteristics assessed were significantly associated with primary catheter patency. CONCLUSIONS: There was no statistical difference between patency, malfunctions, or infections after replacement and salvage, or after stripping and exchange, so technique selection should be based on the patient's estimated lifetime venous access requirements, cost, and physician preference.

Full Text

Duke Authors

Cited Authors

  • Pabon-Ramos, WM; Soyinka, O; Smith, TP; Ronald, J; Suhocki, PV; Kim, CY

Published Date

  • July 2019

Published In

Volume / Issue

  • 30 / 7

Start / End Page

  • 1069 - 1074

PubMed ID

  • 31133452

Pubmed Central ID

  • 31133452

Electronic International Standard Serial Number (EISSN)

  • 1535-7732

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

  • 10.1016/j.jvir.2019.02.027

Language

  • eng

Conference Location

  • United States