COMPARISON BETWEEN PERIPHERALLY IMPLANTED PORTS AND EXTERNALLY SITED CATHETERS FOR LONG-TERM VENOUS ACCESS

In a comparative study, we examined the use of a peripherally implanta ble venous access system which does not require either central venous cannulation or radiological screening. We compared the complication ra te in 85 patients receiving this system with that in 112 similar patie nts receiving Hickman lines. In addition, we examined the safety and c ost implications of using a ward setting instead of full operating fac ilities for port insertion. There was a 10.7% incidence of early and 3 7.6% incidence of late complications in the group receiving Hickman li nes compared with only 2.4% early complications and 10.6% late complic ations in those receiving peripherally implantable ports. There was no difference in complication rates between those patients who had the p orts inserted in a ward side room compared with those who had their pr ocedure performed in the operating theatre. We have demonstrated the e ase and reliability of port insertion in the absence of screening radi ology and we therefore suggest the peripheral port as a safe, cost-eff ective alternative to existing venous access sytems.