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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:European journal of cancer (1990) 2016-05, Vol.59, p.113-124
Main Authors: Wildgruber, Moritz, Lueg, Claudia, Borgmeyer, Sebastian, Karimov, Ilham, Braun, Ulrike, Kiechle, Marion, Meier, Reinhard, Koehler, Michael, Ettl, Johannes, Berger, Hermann
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 &lt; 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 &lt; 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 &lt; 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 &lt; 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 &lt; 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 &lt; 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