High pressure versus standard port system: Comparison of implantation and complications

Introduction Completely implantable access ports for high pressure contrast media injection have been in use in clinical routine for a relatively short time. The purpose of our study was to compare a high pressure port system with a standard port system with regard to implantation and complications. Methods In 94 oncological patients a completely implantable access port was implanted. Patients (n = 49) planned for oncological follow-up computed tomography (CT) received a high pressure port system. Other patients (n = 45) received a standard port system. Intrainterventional pain perception, postinterventional catheter tip migration and complications were analyzed. Results No major periinterventional complications occurred. Intrainterventional pain perception was not significantly different between the two groups. A significantly lower rate of tip migration was observed in the high pressure port group (P = 0.03) and when the port system was implanted on the right side (P = 0.03). In the standard port group catheter occlusion occurred in three patients (7%) and a catheter loop in one patient (2%) whereas no such complications occurred within the high pressure port group. Venous thrombosis was detected in one patient (2%) with a high pressure port; this did not occur in the standard port group. Conclusions Implantation and use of a high pressure port device is safe and reliable: the complications are comparable to those of a standard port device. High pressure port systems should be considered for implantation, especially in patients who will require frequent CTs.