Cancer · 2007
Is radiologic placement of an arm port mandatory in oncology patients?: analysis of a large bi-institutional experience.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Marcy Pierre-Yves, Magné Nicolas, Castadot Pierre, Italiano Antoine, Amoretti Nicolas, Bailet Cédric, Bentolila Franck, Gallard Jean-Claude
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The objective of the current study was 2-fold: to evaluate a radiologically placed percutaneous arm port device (PRAPD) in a large series of 1000 consecutive cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy (in terms of safety, efficacy, complications, and quality of life [QoL]) and to propose future recommendations.
METHODS: From 1998 to August 2002, all patients who had cancer required chemotherapy underwent insertion of a PRAPD and were prospectively included. All patients were followed for technical feasibility, overall device-related complications, and QoL.
RESULTS: Technical failures (6.3%) were caused by the inability to perform an arm venogram in 22 patients or to catheterize the brachial vein in 41 patients. Septic complications (3.2%) included septicemia (n = 7 patients), catheter sepsis (n = 9 patients), and febrile neutropenia (n = 16 patients). Mechanical complications (4%) included a twisted port (n = 2 patients), extravasation (n = 7 patients), catheter leaks (n = 7 patients), port obstruction (n = 7 patients), skin dehiscence of the port (n = 11 patients), catheter rupture and occlusion (n = 5 patients), and median nerve compression (n = 1 patient). Central venous thrombosis occurred in 12 patients (1.2%), and arm phlebitis occurred in 7 patients (0.7%). Procedure-related death occurred in 0.4%. Early port removal was performed in 5.3% of patients. Good QoL was reported at port removal.
CONCLUSIONS: The PRAPD was found to be safe, effective, and well tolerated in oncology patients. PRAPD could be recommended in selected patients instead of a surgical port device.
METHODS: From 1998 to August 2002, all patients who had cancer required chemotherapy underwent insertion of a PRAPD and were prospectively included. All patients were followed for technical feasibility, overall device-related complications, and QoL.
RESULTS: Technical failures (6.3%) were caused by the inability to perform an arm venogram in 22 patients or to catheterize the brachial vein in 41 patients. Septic complications (3.2%) included septicemia (n = 7 patients), catheter sepsis (n = 9 patients), and febrile neutropenia (n = 16 patients). Mechanical complications (4%) included a twisted port (n = 2 patients), extravasation (n = 7 patients), catheter leaks (n = 7 patients), port obstruction (n = 7 patients), skin dehiscence of the port (n = 11 patients), catheter rupture and occlusion (n = 5 patients), and median nerve compression (n = 1 patient). Central venous thrombosis occurred in 12 patients (1.2%), and arm phlebitis occurred in 7 patients (0.7%). Procedure-related death occurred in 0.4%. Early port removal was performed in 5.3% of patients. Good QoL was reported at port removal.
CONCLUSIONS: The PRAPD was found to be safe, effective, and well tolerated in oncology patients. PRAPD could be recommended in selected patients instead of a surgical port device.