Article

[Contrast media pressure injection using a portal catheter system--results of an in vitro study].

Klinik für Strahlenheilkunde, Charité, Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Buch, Berlin.
RöFo - Fortschritte auf dem Gebiet der R (Impact Factor: 1.96). 11/2005; 177(10):1417-23. DOI: 10.1055/s-2005-858480
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Are implanted central venous port catheters suitable for contrast media pressure (power) injection in computed tomography?
In an in vitro study 100 ml of contrast medium (Ultravist 370, Schering, Berlin, Deutschland) was injected through 20 different port catheter systems using a power injector (Stellant, Medrad, Inianola, USA) with a pressure limit of 325 PSI. The injection rate was increased from 2 ml/s to 10 ml/s in increments of 2 ml/s. The maximum injection pressure and maximum injection rate were assessed.
An injection rate of 2 ml/s was possible in all catheter systems. Injection rates of 4 ml/s in 18 systems, 6 ml/s in 13 systems and 8 ml/s in 6 systems were achieved. With a given pressure limit of 325 PSI an injection rate of 10 ml/s was not possible in any of the port catheter systems. There were no catheter ruptures, catheter disconnections or contrast extravasations noted.
Power injection of contrast media with a pressure limit of 325 PSI seems to be tolerated by port catheter systems. Most of the evaluated port systems allow flow rates suitable for multislice computed tomography requiring rapid contrast injection.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
137 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) is the imaging test of choice in suspected pulmonary embolism. High flow rates for the administration of contrast medium are recommended, but these cannot be achieved in a number of patients due to poor peripheral venous access or when using certain central venous catheters. This small feasibility study has examined the CTPA data in a set of 22 patients in whom contrast medium was given at low flow rates (2.0 or 2.5 mL/s). Subjectively, all but one of the patients was judged to be diagnostic. Objectively, enhancement values ≥200 HU were reached in 92% of the examined central vessels (pulmonary trunk, main pulmonary arteries, and lobar arteries). In conclusion, even with a low injection rate CTPA is of diagnostic value in most patients.
    01/2012; 2:57. DOI:10.4103/2156-7514.100999
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose: Evaluation of complications, patient satisfaction and clinical benefit of port systems with authorization for high pressure injection of contrast agent during CT/MR examinations. Materials and Methods: Ultrasound-guided insertions of central venous port catheters were performed through the lateral subclavian vein at a university teaching hospital. The radiological information system (HIS/RIS) was used to evaluate technical success and complication rates. Assessment of patient satisfaction and clinical benefit was carried out by a questionnaire during a telephone call 6 months after implantation of the port system. Results: A total of 195 port systems in 193 patients were implanted. The catheter remained in place for a mean duration of 169 days (overall 29,210 catheter days). The technical success rate was 99.5 % and the overall complication rate was 17.4 % (24/138; 0.82 per 1000 catheter days). Follow-up revealed 13 early port explantations (9 %). Most of the patients reported high satisfaction in general (satisfied/very satisfied: 94 %). 34/209 contrast-enhanced CT/MRT scans (16 %) were performed using the port for contrast media injection. There were no complications during or after administration of contrast agent via the port system. Conclusion: The Powerport system is a safe alternative for peripheral i. v. contrast media injection during CT/MR scans, but has been infrequently used. Most patients reported high overall satisfaction with the port system.
    RöFo - Fortschritte auf dem Gebiet der R 05/2013; 185(5):454-60. DOI:10.1055/s-0032-1330713 · 2.76 Impact Factor
  • RöFo - Fortschritte auf dem Gebiet der R 07/2009; 181(07):664-668. DOI:10.1055/s-0028-1109345 · 1.96 Impact Factor