Loading…
Polyurethane versus silicone catheters for central venous port devices implanted at the forearm
Abstract Purpose We aimed to analyse short and long-term complications of polyurethane (PU) versus silicone catheters used in totally implantable venous-access ports (TIVAPs) implanted at the forearm. Methods Retrospective analysis of 698 consecutively implanted TIVAPs was performed. Primary end-poi...
Saved in:
Published in: | European journal of cancer (1990) 2016-05, Vol.59, p.113-124 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c411t-df2fe9ea38368c5d6cdc71061183e882150812d8e9558d1ab151646ae049de23 |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c411t-df2fe9ea38368c5d6cdc71061183e882150812d8e9558d1ab151646ae049de23 |
container_end_page | 124 |
container_issue | |
container_start_page | 113 |
container_title | European journal of cancer (1990) |
container_volume | 59 |
creator | Wildgruber, Moritz Lueg, Claudia Borgmeyer, Sebastian Karimov, Ilham Braun, Ulrike Kiechle, Marion Meier, Reinhard Koehler, Michael Ettl, Johannes Berger, Hermann |
description | Abstract Purpose We aimed to analyse short and long-term complications of polyurethane (PU) versus silicone catheters used in totally implantable venous-access ports (TIVAPs) implanted at the forearm. Methods Retrospective analysis of 698 consecutively implanted TIVAPs was performed. Primary end-points were defined as rates of major complications associated with either type of central venous port catheter. Technical success rate, device service interval as well as minor complications not requiring port explantation were defined as secondary end-points. Results A total of 698 port devices were implanted in 681 patients, 396 equipped with a PU catheter, 302 with a silicone catheter. The technical success rate was 99.9% with no major periprocedural complications. During follow-up a total of 211 complications in 146 patients were observed (1.0/1000 catheter days), 183 occurred associated with PU catheters (1.8/100 catheter days), 28 (0.3/1000 catheter days) with silicone catheters (log rank test p |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.ejca.2016.02.011 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1785753455</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S095980491600126X</els_id><sourcerecordid>1785753455</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c411t-df2fe9ea38368c5d6cdc71061183e882150812d8e9558d1ab151646ae049de23</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kU1v1DAQhi1ERbeFP8AB5cglYcaJE0dCSKiiLVKlItEDN8u1J6pDEi-2s9L-exxt4cCBkz_0PqOZZxh7i1AhYPthrGg0uuL5XgGvAPEF26Hs-hKk4C_ZDnrRlxKa_pxdxDgCQCcbeMXOeQe8BgE7pr756bgGSk96oeJAIa6xiG5yxue30emJUv4sBh8KQ0sKesqpxefU3odUWDo4Q7Fw837SSyJb6FRkaANIh_k1Oxv0FOnN83nJHq6_PFzdlnf3N1-vPt-VpkFMpR34QD3pWtatNMK2xpoOoUWUNUnJUYBEbiX1QkiL-hEFtk2rKQ9nideX7P2p7D74XyvFpGYXDU25J8q9Kuyk6ETdCJGj_BQ1wccYaFD74GYdjgpBbV7VqDavavOqgKvsNUPvnuuvjzPZv8gfkTnw8RSgPOTBUVDROFoMWRfIJGW9-3_9T__gZnKLM3r6SUeKo1_DkvUpVDED6vu22W2x2AIgb3_UvwH_xZ74</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1785753455</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Polyurethane versus silicone catheters for central venous port devices implanted at the forearm</title><source>ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Wildgruber, Moritz ; Lueg, Claudia ; Borgmeyer, Sebastian ; Karimov, Ilham ; Braun, Ulrike ; Kiechle, Marion ; Meier, Reinhard ; Koehler, Michael ; Ettl, Johannes ; Berger, Hermann</creator><creatorcontrib>Wildgruber, Moritz ; Lueg, Claudia ; Borgmeyer, Sebastian ; Karimov, Ilham ; Braun, Ulrike ; Kiechle, Marion ; Meier, Reinhard ; Koehler, Michael ; Ettl, Johannes ; Berger, Hermann</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract Purpose We aimed to analyse short and long-term complications of polyurethane (PU) versus silicone catheters used in totally implantable venous-access ports (TIVAPs) implanted at the forearm. Methods Retrospective analysis of 698 consecutively implanted TIVAPs was performed. Primary end-points were defined as rates of major complications associated with either type of central venous port catheter. Technical success rate, device service interval as well as minor complications not requiring port explantation were defined as secondary end-points. Results A total of 698 port devices were implanted in 681 patients, 396 equipped with a PU catheter, 302 with a silicone catheter. The technical success rate was 99.9% with no major periprocedural complications. During follow-up a total of 211 complications in 146 patients were observed (1.0/1000 catheter days), 183 occurred associated with PU catheters (1.8/100 catheter days), 28 (0.3/1000 catheter days) with silicone catheters (log rank test p < 0.0001). Catheter-related bloodstream infections as well as thrombotic complications occurred significantly more frequently with PU catheters, while silicone catheters exhibited a trend towards a higher rate of mechanical failure such as disconnection or catheter rupture. Major complications requiring explantation of the device occurred more frequently with PU-based catheters (10.6%) compared to silicone catheter carrying ports (4.6%, log rank test p < 0.001). Conclusion PU catheters are more susceptible to catheter-related infections and exhibit a higher thrombogenicity, compared to silicone catheters. Silicone catheters instead exhibit a trend towards decreased mechanical stability.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0959-8049</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-0852</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2016.02.011</identifier><identifier>PMID: 27023050</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Catheterization, Central Venous - adverse effects ; Central venous access port ; Central Venous Catheters - adverse effects ; Chemotherapy ; Complication ; Equipment Contamination ; Equipment Design ; Equipment Failure ; Female ; Follow-Up Studies ; Forearm - blood supply ; Hematology, Oncology and Palliative Medicine ; Humans ; Infection ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Neoplasms - drug therapy ; Polyurethanes ; Postoperative Complications - etiology ; Retrospective Studies ; Sepsis - etiology ; Silicones ; Surgical Wound Infection - etiology ; Thrombosis ; Vascular Access Devices - adverse effects ; Venous Thrombosis - etiology ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>European journal of cancer (1990), 2016-05, Vol.59, p.113-124</ispartof><rights>Elsevier Ltd</rights><rights>2016 Elsevier Ltd</rights><rights>Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c411t-df2fe9ea38368c5d6cdc71061183e882150812d8e9558d1ab151646ae049de23</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c411t-df2fe9ea38368c5d6cdc71061183e882150812d8e9558d1ab151646ae049de23</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27023050$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Wildgruber, Moritz</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lueg, Claudia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Borgmeyer, Sebastian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Karimov, Ilham</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Braun, Ulrike</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kiechle, Marion</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meier, Reinhard</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Koehler, Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ettl, Johannes</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Berger, Hermann</creatorcontrib><title>Polyurethane versus silicone catheters for central venous port devices implanted at the forearm</title><title>European journal of cancer (1990)</title><addtitle>Eur J Cancer</addtitle><description>Abstract Purpose We aimed to analyse short and long-term complications of polyurethane (PU) versus silicone catheters used in totally implantable venous-access ports (TIVAPs) implanted at the forearm. Methods Retrospective analysis of 698 consecutively implanted TIVAPs was performed. Primary end-points were defined as rates of major complications associated with either type of central venous port catheter. Technical success rate, device service interval as well as minor complications not requiring port explantation were defined as secondary end-points. Results A total of 698 port devices were implanted in 681 patients, 396 equipped with a PU catheter, 302 with a silicone catheter. The technical success rate was 99.9% with no major periprocedural complications. During follow-up a total of 211 complications in 146 patients were observed (1.0/1000 catheter days), 183 occurred associated with PU catheters (1.8/100 catheter days), 28 (0.3/1000 catheter days) with silicone catheters (log rank test p < 0.0001). Catheter-related bloodstream infections as well as thrombotic complications occurred significantly more frequently with PU catheters, while silicone catheters exhibited a trend towards a higher rate of mechanical failure such as disconnection or catheter rupture. Major complications requiring explantation of the device occurred more frequently with PU-based catheters (10.6%) compared to silicone catheter carrying ports (4.6%, log rank test p < 0.001). Conclusion PU catheters are more susceptible to catheter-related infections and exhibit a higher thrombogenicity, compared to silicone catheters. Silicone catheters instead exhibit a trend towards decreased mechanical stability.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Catheterization, Central Venous - adverse effects</subject><subject>Central venous access port</subject><subject>Central Venous Catheters - adverse effects</subject><subject>Chemotherapy</subject><subject>Complication</subject><subject>Equipment Contamination</subject><subject>Equipment Design</subject><subject>Equipment Failure</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Follow-Up Studies</subject><subject>Forearm - blood supply</subject><subject>Hematology, Oncology and Palliative Medicine</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Infection</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Neoplasms - drug therapy</subject><subject>Polyurethanes</subject><subject>Postoperative Complications - etiology</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Sepsis - etiology</subject><subject>Silicones</subject><subject>Surgical Wound Infection - etiology</subject><subject>Thrombosis</subject><subject>Vascular Access Devices - adverse effects</subject><subject>Venous Thrombosis - etiology</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>0959-8049</issn><issn>1879-0852</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kU1v1DAQhi1ERbeFP8AB5cglYcaJE0dCSKiiLVKlItEDN8u1J6pDEi-2s9L-exxt4cCBkz_0PqOZZxh7i1AhYPthrGg0uuL5XgGvAPEF26Hs-hKk4C_ZDnrRlxKa_pxdxDgCQCcbeMXOeQe8BgE7pr756bgGSk96oeJAIa6xiG5yxue30emJUv4sBh8KQ0sKesqpxefU3odUWDo4Q7Fw837SSyJb6FRkaANIh_k1Oxv0FOnN83nJHq6_PFzdlnf3N1-vPt-VpkFMpR34QD3pWtatNMK2xpoOoUWUNUnJUYBEbiX1QkiL-hEFtk2rKQ9nideX7P2p7D74XyvFpGYXDU25J8q9Kuyk6ETdCJGj_BQ1wccYaFD74GYdjgpBbV7VqDavavOqgKvsNUPvnuuvjzPZv8gfkTnw8RSgPOTBUVDROFoMWRfIJGW9-3_9T__gZnKLM3r6SUeKo1_DkvUpVDED6vu22W2x2AIgb3_UvwH_xZ74</recordid><startdate>20160501</startdate><enddate>20160501</enddate><creator>Wildgruber, Moritz</creator><creator>Lueg, Claudia</creator><creator>Borgmeyer, Sebastian</creator><creator>Karimov, Ilham</creator><creator>Braun, Ulrike</creator><creator>Kiechle, Marion</creator><creator>Meier, Reinhard</creator><creator>Koehler, Michael</creator><creator>Ettl, Johannes</creator><creator>Berger, Hermann</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20160501</creationdate><title>Polyurethane versus silicone catheters for central venous port devices implanted at the forearm</title><author>Wildgruber, Moritz ; Lueg, Claudia ; Borgmeyer, Sebastian ; Karimov, Ilham ; Braun, Ulrike ; Kiechle, Marion ; Meier, Reinhard ; Koehler, Michael ; Ettl, Johannes ; Berger, Hermann</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c411t-df2fe9ea38368c5d6cdc71061183e882150812d8e9558d1ab151646ae049de23</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Catheterization, Central Venous - adverse effects</topic><topic>Central venous access port</topic><topic>Central Venous Catheters - adverse effects</topic><topic>Chemotherapy</topic><topic>Complication</topic><topic>Equipment Contamination</topic><topic>Equipment Design</topic><topic>Equipment Failure</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Follow-Up Studies</topic><topic>Forearm - blood supply</topic><topic>Hematology, Oncology and Palliative Medicine</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Infection</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Neoplasms - drug therapy</topic><topic>Polyurethanes</topic><topic>Postoperative Complications - etiology</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Sepsis - etiology</topic><topic>Silicones</topic><topic>Surgical Wound Infection - etiology</topic><topic>Thrombosis</topic><topic>Vascular Access Devices - adverse effects</topic><topic>Venous Thrombosis - etiology</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Wildgruber, Moritz</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lueg, Claudia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Borgmeyer, Sebastian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Karimov, Ilham</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Braun, Ulrike</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kiechle, Marion</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meier, Reinhard</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Koehler, Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ettl, Johannes</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Berger, Hermann</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>European journal of cancer (1990)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Wildgruber, Moritz</au><au>Lueg, Claudia</au><au>Borgmeyer, Sebastian</au><au>Karimov, Ilham</au><au>Braun, Ulrike</au><au>Kiechle, Marion</au><au>Meier, Reinhard</au><au>Koehler, Michael</au><au>Ettl, Johannes</au><au>Berger, Hermann</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Polyurethane versus silicone catheters for central venous port devices implanted at the forearm</atitle><jtitle>European journal of cancer (1990)</jtitle><addtitle>Eur J Cancer</addtitle><date>2016-05-01</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>59</volume><spage>113</spage><epage>124</epage><pages>113-124</pages><issn>0959-8049</issn><eissn>1879-0852</eissn><abstract>Abstract Purpose We aimed to analyse short and long-term complications of polyurethane (PU) versus silicone catheters used in totally implantable venous-access ports (TIVAPs) implanted at the forearm. Methods Retrospective analysis of 698 consecutively implanted TIVAPs was performed. Primary end-points were defined as rates of major complications associated with either type of central venous port catheter. Technical success rate, device service interval as well as minor complications not requiring port explantation were defined as secondary end-points. Results A total of 698 port devices were implanted in 681 patients, 396 equipped with a PU catheter, 302 with a silicone catheter. The technical success rate was 99.9% with no major periprocedural complications. During follow-up a total of 211 complications in 146 patients were observed (1.0/1000 catheter days), 183 occurred associated with PU catheters (1.8/100 catheter days), 28 (0.3/1000 catheter days) with silicone catheters (log rank test p < 0.0001). Catheter-related bloodstream infections as well as thrombotic complications occurred significantly more frequently with PU catheters, while silicone catheters exhibited a trend towards a higher rate of mechanical failure such as disconnection or catheter rupture. Major complications requiring explantation of the device occurred more frequently with PU-based catheters (10.6%) compared to silicone catheter carrying ports (4.6%, log rank test p < 0.001). Conclusion PU catheters are more susceptible to catheter-related infections and exhibit a higher thrombogenicity, compared to silicone catheters. Silicone catheters instead exhibit a trend towards decreased mechanical stability.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>27023050</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.ejca.2016.02.011</doi><tpages>12</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0959-8049 |
ispartof | European journal of cancer (1990), 2016-05, Vol.59, p.113-124 |
issn | 0959-8049 1879-0852 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1785753455 |
source | ScienceDirect Journals |
subjects | Adult Aged Aged, 80 and over Catheterization, Central Venous - adverse effects Central venous access port Central Venous Catheters - adverse effects Chemotherapy Complication Equipment Contamination Equipment Design Equipment Failure Female Follow-Up Studies Forearm - blood supply Hematology, Oncology and Palliative Medicine Humans Infection Male Middle Aged Neoplasms - drug therapy Polyurethanes Postoperative Complications - etiology Retrospective Studies Sepsis - etiology Silicones Surgical Wound Infection - etiology Thrombosis Vascular Access Devices - adverse effects Venous Thrombosis - etiology Young Adult |
title | Polyurethane versus silicone catheters for central venous port devices implanted at the forearm |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-22T15%3A41%3A33IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Polyurethane%20versus%20silicone%20catheters%20for%20central%20venous%20port%20devices%20implanted%20at%20the%20forearm&rft.jtitle=European%20journal%20of%20cancer%20(1990)&rft.au=Wildgruber,%20Moritz&rft.date=2016-05-01&rft.volume=59&rft.spage=113&rft.epage=124&rft.pages=113-124&rft.issn=0959-8049&rft.eissn=1879-0852&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.ejca.2016.02.011&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1785753455%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c411t-df2fe9ea38368c5d6cdc71061183e882150812d8e9558d1ab151646ae049de23%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1785753455&rft_id=info:pmid/27023050&rfr_iscdi=true |