Start your free 3-day trial — no credit card required, full access included

  1. Summary of the Literature

    A port catheter system is a subcutaneously placed access to the usually central venous system, designed for long-term use. Through the port system, the administration of substances with higher osmolarity (cytostatics, nutritional solutions, blood components) can occur over a longer period. Other advantages include the completely subcutaneous position, which reduces the risk of infection compared to percutaneously inserted catheters, and the improved quality of life for patients regarding personal hygiene and physical activities.

    The first port systems were described in 1982 [1, 2] and quickly gained increasing importance as permanent and safe central venous accesses, especially in oncological therapy, due to the very good clinical results.

    The available access routes for catheter implantation include the V. cephalica, the V. jugularis externa et interna, the V. subclavia in the shoulder-thorax area, and the V. basilica [3]. The implantation method, access route, and implantation site have no impact on early and late complications, as shown by a randomized controlled trial from 2009 [4]. However, studies have shown that left-sided catheter positions and the position of the catheter tip in the upper part of the V. cava superior have a higher risk for thrombotic events [5, 6].

    Intraoperative complications occur relatively rarely and are below 2% [7]. Most problems arise in the long-term course. In addition to patient-inherent risk factors, improper handling of port systems plays a significant role in infections. Port infections are among the most common complications and are thus also the most common cause for port explantation [8, 9]. The spectrum of germs is dominated by gram-positive skin pathogens such as S. epidermidis, S. aureus, and various streptococci. An increasing number of Candida-related infections have been reported [10, 11]. The colonization of S. epidermidis is said to be successfully eliminated by the intraluminal application of vancomycin according to a study by Gaillard et al. [12]. A reduction in catheter-related bacteremia in high-risk patients through a catheter block with vancomycin was described in a meta-analysis by Safdar et al. [13]. Bissling et al. demonstrated a significant reduction in catheter infections through catheter blockage with taurolidine [14].

    The pharmacological prophylaxis of catheter-associated thrombosis is controversially discussed. The benefit of thrombosis prophylaxis was shown by Monreal et al. [15], while more recent randomized studies and a meta-analysis did not show a significant effect on the reduction of thromboembolic events by central venous catheter systems [16 - 19]. Accordingly, the regular flushing of the port system with heparin solution is controversial [20]. The regular flushing of the port system with heparinized NaCl solution is recommended according to various manufacturers' instructions, but there is no evident data proving a benefit compared to normal NaCl solution. Heparin-associated side effects in case of overdose (bleeding, heparin-induced thrombocytopenia) and the unclear legal situation regarding the intravenous administration of drugs by outpatient nursing services argue against a standardized flushing of the port system with heparinized NaCl solution. Corresponding references can be found in the guidelines of the German Society for Nutritional Medicine [21, 22].

  2. Currently ongoing studies on this topic

  3. Literature on this Topic

    1. Niederhuber JE, Ensminger W, Gyves JW et al (1982) Totally implanted venous and arterial access system to replace external catheters in cancer treatment. Surgery 92(4):706–712

    2. Niederhuber J, Gyves J, Ensminger W et al (1982) Totally implanted system for intravenous chemotherapy in patients with cancer. Am J Med. 73(6):841–845

    3. Lenhart M, Schätzler S, Manke C, Strotzer M et al (2010) Radiological implantation of central venous port systems in the forearm – implantation results and long-term follow-up in 391 patients. Fortschr Röntgenstr 182:20–28

    4. Biffi R, Orsi F, Pozzi S et al (2009) Best choice of central venous insertion site for the prevention of catheter-related complications in adult patients who need cancer therapy: a randomized trial. Ann Oncol 20:935-940

    5. Ignatov A, Hoffmann O, Smith B, Fahlke J et al (2009) An 11-year retrospective study of totally implanted central venous access ports: complications and patient satisfaction. Eur J Surg Oncol 35:241–246

    6. Puel V, Caudry M et al (1993) Superior vena cava thrombosis related to catheter malposition in cancer chemotherapy given through implanted ports. Cancer 72(7):2248–2252

    7. Hofmann HAF (2008) The port implantation. Chirurgische Praxis 69:695–708

    8. Teichgräber UK, Pfitzmann R, Hofmann HA (2011) Central venous port systems as an integral part of chemotherapy. Dtsch Ärztebl Int 108(9):147–154

    9. Fischer L, Knebel P, Schröder S et al (2008) Reasons for explantation of totally implantable access ports: a multivariate analysis of 385 consecutive patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 15(4):1124–1129

    10. Clarke DE, Raffin TA (1990) Infectious complications of indwelling long-term central venous catheters. Chest 97:966–972

    11. Newman N, Issa A, Greenberg D et al (2012) Central venous catheter-associated bloodstream infections. Pediatr Blood Cancer 59(2):410–414

    12. Gaillard JL, Merlino R, Pajot N, Goulet O, Fauchere JL, Ricour C, Veron M. Conventional and nonconventional modes of vancomycin administration to decontaminate the internal surface of catheters colonized with coagulase-negative staphylococci. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 1990 Nov-Dec;14(6):593-7.

    13. Safdar N, Maki DG (2006) Use of vancomycin-containing lock or flush solutions for prevention of bloodstream infections associated with central venous access devices: a meta-analysis of prospective, randomized trials. Clin Infect Dis 43:474–484

    14. Bisseling TM, Willems MC, Versleijen MW et al (2010) Taurolidine lock is highly effective in preventing catheter-related bloodstream infections in patients on home parenteral nutrition: a heparin-controlled prospective trial. Clin Nutr 29:464–468

    15. Monreal M, Alastrue A, Rull M et al (1995) Upper extremity deep venous thrombosis in cancer patients with venous access devices – Prophylaxis with a low molecular weight heparin (Fragmin). Thromb Haemost 75:251–253

    16. Chan A, Iannucci A, Dager WE (2007) Systemic anticoagulant prophylaxis for central catheter-associated venous thrombosis in cancer patients. Ann Pharmacother 41(4):635–641

    17. Karthaus M, Kretzschmar A, Kröning H et al (2006) Dalteparin for prevention of catheter-related complications in cancer patients with central venous catheters: final results of a double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial. Ann Oncol 17(2):289–296

    18. Verso M, Agnelli G, Bertoglio S et al (2005) Enoxaparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism associated with central vein catheter: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized study in cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 23(18):4057–4062

    19. Chaukiyal P, Nautiyal A et al (2008) Thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients with central venous catheters. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Thromb Haemost 99(1):38–43

    20. Kanna A (2008) Heparinised saline or normal saline? J Perioper Pract 18:440–441

    21. Shaffer JL, Bakker H, Bozzetti F et al (1997) A European survey on management of catheter-related complications in home parenteral nutrition. Clin Nutr 16:42

    22. Jauch KW, Stanga Z et al (2007) Technique and problem of access in parenteral nutrition. Guideline Parenteral Nutrition of the DGEM Aktuel Ernaehr Med 32(Suppl 1):41–53

  4. Reviews

    Clari M, Spoto M, Franceschi G, Acuto M, Tonella S, Caristia S, Buratti G, Gaboardi S, Rasero L, Campagna S, Busca E, Dal Molin A. Short Versus Long Timing of Flushing of Totally Implantable Venous Access Devices When Not Used Routinely: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Cancer Nurs. 2021 May-Jun 01;44(3):205-213

    Jiang M, Li CL, Pan CQ, Cui XW, Dietrich CF. Risk of venous thromboembolism associated with totally implantable venous access ports in cancer patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Thromb Haemost. 2020 Sep;18(9):2253-2273.

    Jiang M, Li CL, Pan CQ, Yu L. The risk of bloodstream infection associated with totally implantable venous access ports in cancer patient: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Support Care Cancer. 2020 Jan;28(1):361-372.

    Toro A, Schembari E, Fontana EG, Di Saverio S, Di Carlo I. Forty years after the first totally implantable venous access device (TIVAD) implant: the pure surgical cut-down technique only avoids immediate complications that can be fatal. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2021 Sep;406(6):1739-1749.

    van den Bosch CH, van Woensel J, van de Wetering MD. Prophylactic antibiotics for preventing gram-positive infections associated with long-term central venous catheters in adults and children receiving treatment for cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Oct 7;10:CD003295.

    Wang P, Soh KL, Ying Y, Liu Y, Huang X, Huang J. Risk of VTE associated with PORTs and PICCs in cancer patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Thromb Res. 2022 May;213:34-42.

    Wu XH, Chen LC, Liu GL, Zhang TT, Chen XS. Heparin versus 0.9% saline solution to maintain patency of totally implanted venous access ports in cancer patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Nurs Pract. 2021 Apr;27(2):e12913.

    Xiong ZY, Zhou HM, Li SY. Prolonged flushing and locking interval for totally implantable vascular access device: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Vasc Access. 2021 Nov;22(6):969-978.

    Yeow M, Soh S, Yap R, Tay D, Low YF, Goh SSN, Yeo CS, Lo ZJ. A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on choice of central venous access device for delivery of chemotherapy. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2022 Sep;10(5):1184-1191.e8.

    Zhou Y, Lan Y, Zhang Q, Song J, He J, Peng N, Peng X, Yang X. Totally implantable venous access ports: A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing subclavian and internal jugular vein punctures. Phlebology. 2022 May;37(4):279-288.

  5. Guidelines

  6. literature search

    Literature search on the pages of pubmed.