[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: 2.76). 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.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The use of totally implantable venous access devices in radiology may be associated with complications such as occlusion of the system (because of the high density of some contrast), infection (if the port is not handled in aseptic conditions, using proper barrier protections), and mechanical complications due to the high-pressure administration of contrast by automatic injectors (so-called power injector), including extravasation of contrast media into the soft tissues, subintimal venous or myocardial injection, or serious damage to the device itself (breakage of the external connections, dislocation of the non-coring needle, or breakage of the catheter). The last problem - i.e., the damage of the device from a power injection - is not an unjustified fear, but a reality. A warning by the US Food and Drug Administration of July 2004 reports around 250 complications of this kind, referring to both port and central venous catheters and peripherally inserted central catheter systems, which occurred over a period of several years; in all cases, the damage occurred during the injection of contrast material by means of power injectors for computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging procedures. Though the risk associated with the use of ports in radiodiagnostics is thus clear, it has been suggested that administration of the contrast material via the port may have some advantage in terms of image quality, increased comfort for the patient, and maybe more accurate reproducibility of the patient's own follow-up exams. This contention needs to be supported by evidence. Also, since many cancer patients who need frequent computed tomography studies already have totally implantable systems, it would seem reasonable to try to define how and when such systems may safely be used. The purpose of this consensus statement is to define recommendations based on the best available evidence, for the safe use of implantable ports in radiodiagnostics.
    The journal of vascular access 04/2011; 12(4):292-305. · 1.02 Impact Factor
  • [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.
    Journal of clinical imaging science. 01/2012; 2:57.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives To evaluate the technical success, clinical outcome and safety of percutaneously placed totally implantable venous power ports (TIVPPs) approved for high-pressure injections, and to analyse their value for arterial phase CT scans. Methods Retrospectively, we identified 204 patients who underwent TIVPP implantation in the forearm (n=152) or chest (n=52) between November 2009 and May 2011. Implantation via an upper arm (forearm port, FP) or subclavian vein (chest port, CP) was performed under sonographic and fluoroscopic guidance. Complications were evaluated following the standards of the Society of Interventional Radiology. Power injections via TIVPPs were analysed, focusing on adequate functioning and catheter's tip location after injection. Feasibility of automatic bolus triggering, peak injection pressure and arterial phase aortic enhancement were evaluated and compared with 50 patients who had had power injections via classic peripheral cannulas. Results Technical success was 100%. Procedure-related complications were not observed. Catheter-related thrombosis was diagnosed in 15 of 152 FPs (9.9%, 0.02/100 catheter days) and in 1 of 52 CPs (1.9%, 0.002/100 catheter days) (p<0.05). Infectious complications were diagnosed in 9 of 152 FPs (5.9%, 0.014/100 catheter days) and in 2 of 52 CPs (3.8%, 0.003/100 catheter days) (p>0.05). Arterial bolus triggering succeeded in all attempts; the mean injection pressure was 213.8 psi. Aortic enhancement did not significantly differ between injections via cannulas and TIVPPs (p>0.05). Conclusions TIVPPs can be implanted with high technical success rates, and are associated with low rates of complications if implanted with sonographic and fluoroscopic guidance. Power injections via TIVPPs are safe and result in satisfying arterial contrast. Conventional ports should be replaced by TIVPPs.
    The British journal of radiology 06/2012; 85(1019):e966-72. · 2.11 Impact Factor