Current port maintenance strategies are insufficient

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text Abstract Nursing staff play a crucial role in maintaining a functional port. Nursing guidelines recommend standard maintenance with 10 ml irrigation without consideration for variations among patients and individual nursing staff. The aim of this study is to identify the efficacy of the current maintenance strategy and analyze the correlation between complications and actual port presentations, based on disassembled intravenous ports after removal from patients. We attempt to organize the information and propose a definite maintenance strategy. After treatment completion, or due to complications, 434 implanted intravenous ports were removed from patients. All ports were deconstructed to observe their actual presentations and were then analyzed in conjunction with medical records. The correlation between complications and actual presentations was analyzed. From March 2012 to December 2017, 434 implanted intravenous ports were removed from oncology patients after completion of treatment or catheter related complications. From the view of maintenance related presentations, injection chamber blood clot was highly correlated with chemotherapy completion (P < .001) and malfunction (P = .005), while tip blood clot (P = .043) was related with chemotherapy completion and catheter fibrin (P = .015) was related to malfunction. From the view of structure related presentations, broken catheter integrity was correlated to chemotherapy completion (P = .007), fracture (P < .001), and malfunction (P = .008). Compression groove was related to chemotherapy completion (P = .03) and broken catheter at protruding stud was related to fracture (P = .04), while diaphragm rupture was correlated to chemotherapy completion (P = .048) and malfunction. (P < .001). Current port maintenance is insufficient for ideal port maintenance, whereby maintenance-related presentations, including tip clot, catheter fibrin, and injection chamber blood clot were identified. We propose a recommended maintenance strategy based on our findings. Structure-related presentations, including broken catheter integrity, broken catheter at protruding stud and diaphragm rupture were seen in patients with longer implantation period. Removal of the implanted port may be considered after 5 years if no disease relapse is noted.

[1]  C. Chiu,et al.  Recommended irrigation volume for an intravenous port: Ex vivo simulation study , 2018, PloS one.

[2]  Yun-hen Liu,et al.  Initial experiences with a new design for a preattached intravenous port device. , 2018, Journal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials.

[3]  O. Alabiso,et al.  Port in oncology practice: 3-monthly locking with normal saline for catheter maintenance, a preliminary report , 2017, The journal of vascular access.

[4]  G. Pravettoni,et al.  Incidence and Determinants of Port Occlusions in Cancer Outpatients: A Prospective Cohort Study , 2017, Cancer nursing.

[5]  L. Gorski.  The 2016 Infusion Therapy Standards of Practice , 2017, Home healthcare now.

[6]  M. V. van Driel,et al.  Venous cutdown versus the Seldinger technique for placement of totally implantable venous access ports. , 2016, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[7]  Rachel M. Edwards,et al.  Heparin versus 0.9% sodium chloride intermittent flushing for the prevention of occlusion in long term central venous catheters in infants and children: A systematic review. , 2016, International journal of nursing studies.

[8]  F. Cardoso,et al.  Central venous access in oncology: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines. , 2015, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[9]  Ching-Yang Wu,et al.  The Treatment Results of a Standard Algorithm for Choosing the Best Entry Vessel for Intravenous Port Implantation , 2015, Medicine.

[10]  G. Goossens.  Flushing and Locking of Venous Catheters: Available Evidence and Evidence Deficit , 2015, Nursing research and practice.

[11]  G. Guiffant,et al.  Pulsative flushing as a strategy to prevent bacterial colonization of vascular access devices , 2014, Medical devices.

[12]  E. Vittinghoff,et al.  Impact of decreased heparin dose for flush‐lock of implanted venous access ports in pediatric oncology patients , 2014, Pediatric blood & cancer.

[13]  Yun-hen Liu,et al.  Analysis of chest X-ray plain film images of intravenous ports inserted via the superior vena cava , 2014, Surgery Today.

[14]  Yun-hen Liu,et al.  A single-center study of vascular access sites for intravenous ports , 2014, Surgery Today.

[15]  P. Ko,et al.  Risk factors and possible mechanisms of intravenous port catheter migration. , 2012, European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery : the official journal of the European Society for Vascular Surgery.

[16]  Yun-hen Liu,et al.  Risk Factors and Possible Mechanisms of Superior Vena Cava Intravenous Port Malfunction , 2012, Annals of surgery.

[17]  Patrice Flaud,et al.  Flushing ports of totally implantable venous access devices, and impact of the Huber point needle bevel orientation: experimental tests and numerical computation , 2012, Medical devices.

[18]  S. Schettini,et al.  Long‐term complications in totally implantable venous access devices: Randomized study comparing subclavian and internal jugular vein puncture , 2012, Pediatric blood & cancer.

[19]  Ching-Yang Wu,et al.  Catheter Fracture of Intravenous Ports and its Management , 2011, World Journal of Surgery.

[20]  T. Ignatov,et al.  Interval between Port Catheter Flushing Can Be Extended to Four Months , 2010, Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation.

[21]  I. Di Carlo,et al.  Increased Use of Percutaneous Technique for Totally Implantable Venous Access Devices. Is It Real Progress? A 27-Year Comprehensive Review on Early Complications , 2010, Annals of Surgical Oncology.

[22]  G. Basaran,et al.  Prolonged interval in prophylactic heparin flushing for maintenance of subcutaneous implanted port care in patients with cancer. , 2009, European journal of cancer care.

[23]  Walter Sermeus,et al.  Functional evaluation of conventional ‘Celsite®’ venous ports versus ‘Vortex®’ ports with a tangential outlet: a prospective randomised pilot study , 2008, Supportive Care in Cancer.

[24]  A. Fields,et al.  How Often Should a Port-A-Cath be Flushed? , 2005, Cancer investigation.

[25]  J. Kuhn,et al.  A prospective randomized trial demonstrating valved implantable ports have fewer complications and lower overall cost than nonvalved implantable ports. , 2004, American journal of surgery.

[26]  H. Wagner,et al.  Central Venous Access Catheters: Radiological Management of Complications , 2003, CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology.

[27]  R. Biffi,et al.  Valved Central Venous Catheter Connected to Subcutaneous Port: A Multicenter Phase IV Study Based on a Cohort of 50 Oncology Patients , 2002, The journal of vascular access.

[28]  F. Orsi,et al.  A randomized, prospective trial of central venous ports connected to standard open‐ended or Groshong catheters in adult oncology patients , 2001, Cancer.

[29]  P. Witteveen,et al.  Totally implantable venous access devices: evaluation of complications and a prospective comparative study of two different port systems. , 2000, The Netherlands journal of medicine.

[30]  S. Moenter,et al.  A randomized, prospective trial of conventional vascular ports vs. the vortex “clear-flow” reservoir port in adult oncology patients , 2000 .

[31]  E. Bow,et al.  Totally implantable venous access ports systems for patients receiving chemotherapy for solid tissue malignancies: A randomized controlled clinical trial examining the safety, efficacy, costs, and impact on quality of life. , 1999, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[32]  M. Hopkins.  Infusion port maintains excellent blood return after 77 weeks without flushing. , 1993, Oncology nursing forum.

[33]  J. Minton,et al.  The "pinch-off sign": a warning of impending problems with permanent subclavian catheters. , 1984, American journal of surgery.

[34]  J. Niederhuber,et al.  Totally implanted venous and arterial access system to replace external catheters in cancer treatment. , 1982, Surgery.