Why the study?
What are the early and late complication rates of port catheter implantation in cancer patients?
Observational (n=102)
No
What are the early and late complication rates of port catheter implantation in cancer patients?
Port catheter implantation in cancer patients is associated with early complications in up to 8% of cases and late complications in up to 15%, with thrombosis being the most common cause of late dysfunction.
Highlights need for vigilant port monitoring in cancer patients; leaves open optimal prevention strategies pending prospective data.
Aim This study evaluates cancer patients undergoing port catheter implantation. Patients and methods The study was conducted among patients admitted to the cardiovascular department of Düzce State Hospital from June 2018 to July 2020. The inclusion criterion was the implantation of a vascular port for at during 2 years. One hundred and two patients were enrolled in the study. The most common acute outcomes such as pneumothorax, haemothorax, thoracic duct damage and cardiac tamponade and the demographic characteristics of all patients were recorded. Patients were evaluated for the late complications of port catheter, such as thrombosis, infection and kinking, catheter fracture and occlusion. Results Complications of port catheter occurred early (≤30 days) and delayed (>30 days) at rates of up to 8% and 15%, respectively. The most common early and late complications were pneumothorax and non-functional port (occlusion, thrombosis, kinking), respectively. Conclusions Thrombosis is the most common cause of dysfunction in central port catheters used in the treatment of cancer patients. Routine radiological imaging can help in early detection of catheter-related complications.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ekin İlkeli (2021) conducted an observational in Cancer requiring central venous port catheter (n=102). Central venous port catheter implantation was evaluated on Early and late complications.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: