Comparison of a totally implantable access device for chemotherapy (Port-A-Cath) and long-term percutaneous catheterization (Broviac)

Abstract

Because of the difficulty in maintaining vascular access in patients receiving aggressive parenteral chemotherapy, a growing number of patients have had implantation of either percutaneous or subcutaneous devices allowing permanent intravenous access. In our study, between July 1980 and July 1985, 110 patients had placement of a Broviac catheter, while 100 patients had placement of a subcutaneous device via a subclavian venous approach. Both groups of patients were identical regarding age, primary malignancy, chemotherapy, and nutritional status. Catheter-related sepsis occurred in 15% and thrombotic occlusion in 22% of those patients with Broviac catheters, compared with 3% and 1%, respectively, in patients having subcutaneous reservoirs. Although the initial cost of the subcutaneous reservoir is greater, overall cost of maintenance of the percutaneous catheter far exceeds that of the reservoir because of the need for daily catheter care and heparin flushing of the Broviac device, which is unnecessary for the subcutaneous port. Our experience favors the use of the subcutaneous reservoir in patients receiving prolonged chemotherapy.