• Matthew D Alexander and Harry L Morrison.
• Department of Radiology, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, San Jose, CA 95125, USA.
• J Vasc Access. 2012 Oct 1; 13 (4): 432-7.

PurposeTo determine the safety of power-injectable ports during placement, therapeutic use, and administration of intravenous contrast material using automated mechanical injectors.MethodsThis retrospective, single institution study examined all patients undergoing placement of a power-injectable port between May 1, 2006 and June 30, 2010, with follow-up data collected through October 31, 2010. Electronic records and PACS were searched for patient demographics, placement indication, device placed, placement site, attending operator, and complications. The number of CECT scans performed for patients with indwelling ports, rate of port access for such studies, and contrast extravasation or device failure events during power injection of contrast were recorded and compared to the results of all other methods of venous access for CECT scans.ResultsIn total, 313 ports were placed in 307 patients. Device dwell time ranged from 3 to 1506 days with a mean of 577. A total of 20 (6.5%) complications were identified during the study period, all of which were late. There was no statistically significant difference in complication rates between five attending operators. Patients with ports underwent 676 CECT scans during which the port was injected 142 times (20.9%). Neither extravasation nor device failure occurred during any scan, yielding no statistically significant difference when compared to the results of other venous access methods.ConclusionsPower-injectable tunneled catheters with attached subcutaneous ports are safe with low rates of complication during placement and dwell time. Power injection of contrast through these ports may be as safe as power injection using other venous access methods.

28 keywords...

hide…