» Articles » PMID: 28084883

Phase II Trial on Extending the Maintenance Flushing Interval of Implanted Ports

Overview
Journal J Oncol Pract
Specialty Oncology
Date 2017 Jan 14
PMID 28084883
Citations 10
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: Retrospective studies suggest that it may be safe to extend the maintenance flushing interval of implanted ports from once every month, as recommended by the manufacturer, to once every 3 months, but no prospective cohort studies have been done specifically assessing the safety and feasibility of this intervention.

Methods: This was a phase II study in oncologic patients who retained a functional port after completion of systemic chemotherapy. Patients enrolled in the study had their port flushed once every 3 months and were observed until completion of five scheduled flushes (one on enrollment and four additional flushes, one every 3 months) or development of any port-related complication, including infections, thrombosis, and occlusions. The primary end points were frequency of port-related complications and port failure requiring removal.

Results: A total of 87 patients were enrolled in the study. The median follow-up time was 308 days, accounting for a total of 24,202 catheter-days. There were 10 port-related complications (11.49%; 95% CI, 4.85% to 18.14%). No infection or symptomatic thrombosis occurred. The mean time to port-related complication was 184 days. No patients developed port failure while on protocol, but on subsequent medical record review, four patients developed a complication that required port removal or port revision within 30 days of being removed from the trial (4.6%; 95% CI, 0.4% to 8.8%; 0.17/1,000 catheter-days).

Conclusion: Extending the maintenance flushes of implanted ports in adult oncologic patients to once every 3 months is safe, effective, and likely to increase patient adherence and satisfaction while decreasing the associated cost.

Citing Articles

Is it feasible to prolong the flushing interval for totally implantable venous access devices (TIVADs)? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Liu L, Liang J, Liu Z, Jin Y, Ma C, Zhao X Int J Clin Oncol. 2024; 30(1):40-50.

PMID: 39601969 DOI: 10.1007/s10147-024-02665-2.


Complications associated with the removal of totally implantable venous access devices (TIVADs): a retrospective analysis of 4,954 breast cancer patients in a single institution.

Su J, Liu L, Xie Y, Wang J BMC Surg. 2024; 24(1):324.

PMID: 39438981 PMC: 11495116. DOI: 10.1186/s12893-024-02630-w.


Disparities in Clinical Trial Participation: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Cancer Patients at a Midwest Academic Medical Center.

Moreland K, Kovacic M, Rai S, Sohal D Curr Oncol. 2024; 31(9):5367-5373.

PMID: 39330024 PMC: 11431411. DOI: 10.3390/curroncol31090396.


Focused ultrasound enables selective actuation and Newton-level force output of untethered soft robots.

Hao B, Wang X, Dong Y, Sun M, Xin C, Yang H Nat Commun. 2024; 15(1):5197.

PMID: 38890294 PMC: 11189400. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-024-49148-6.


Central venous access device terminologies, complications, and reason for removal in oncology: a scoping review.

Curtis K, Gough K, Krishnasamy M, Tarasenko E, Hill G, Keogh S BMC Cancer. 2024; 24(1):498.

PMID: 38641574 PMC: 11027380. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-024-12099-8.