Abstract
Purpose:
To retrospectively compare complications for totally implanted venous access devices (TIVADs or ports) in the arm vs. the chest. One participating institution implanted all TIVADs in the arm, whereas the other institution implanted them in the chest.
Methods:
Subjects were consecutive patients > 18 years with a device inserted between July 2017 and January 2019 at either Hospital A, where all devices were implanted in the arm, or at Hospital B, where all devices were implanted in the chest. Complications (rates/1,000 catheter-days and frequencies) were compared between the arm and chest locations.
Results:
201 arm devices (71% female, mean age 59.4 years) and 203 chest devices (66% female, mean age 61.5 years) were assessed. Overall complication rates did not differ between the arm and chest [arm: 30 complications per 56,938 catheter-days (0.530/1,000 catheter-days) vs. chest: 47 complications per 63,324 catheter-days (0.742/1,000 catheter-days), p-value 0.173]. Periprocedural complications and mechanical malfunction also did not differ. Although prophylactic antibiotic use was higher in the chest (79.3% vs. 1.50%, p-value < 0.0001), infection rates did not differ. Arm venous thrombosis was significantly higher in the arm cohort (0.205 vs. 0.017/1,000 catheter-days, p-value 0.003) and pulmonary thromboembolism in the chest cohort (0.269 vs 0.056/1,000 catheter-days, p-value 0.002).
Conclusions:
While arm venous thrombosis was higher in the arm and pulmonary thromboembolism in the chest cohort, other complications were similar. Antibiotic use was more frequent in the chest cohort, while infection rates remained similar in both cohorts.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.