Functional Evaluation of Two Types of Totally Implanted Venous Ports
|The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government. Read our disclaimer for details.|
|ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00484848|
Recruitment Status : Completed
First Posted : June 11, 2007
Last Update Posted : January 26, 2009
Totally implanted venous access ports allow a safe delivery of medication, mainly chemotherapy, but are also used for blood sampling. This last procedure is not always successful, as it appeared from a nurse's survey in different hospitals in Flanders, including the University Hospitals in Leuven, Belgium. In 3 to 29 percent of the attempts, blood withdrawal is impaired or not possible, as an intermittent or permanent fact. This is in line with international literature data where difficulty in blood draw was noted in 6 to 26% of port accessions. Partial or total occlusion leads to discomfort for the patient, delay in therapy, higher costs and extra nursing time.
A new port system with a tangential outlet (Vortex port) was designed and according to the manufacturer, this shape will allow to cleanse the entire reservoir of the port more efficiently and avoid the formation of precipitates of medication or blood that could lead to an obstruction of the device. These precipitates are also regarded as a potential risk factor for infection.
However, only one previously published small randomised study addressed the value of the Vortex port when compared to conventional access devices: Stevens et al. were able to show a reduction in obstruction incidence from 26% to 7% with the use of the Vortex port. The incidence of blood withdrawal problems in our experience with conventional ports in University hospitals Leuven was 8% thus lower than that reported by Stevens, but this remains the most frequent problem faced by care providers and patients.
With this study, the investigators aim to compare the performance of the tangential outlet ports and that of a "conventional" port in order to assess an eventual functional difference.
|Condition or disease||Intervention/treatment|
|Hematologic Disease||Device: Vortex port and Celsite port|
|Study Type :||Interventional (Clinical Trial)|
|Actual Enrollment :||200 participants|
|Intervention Model:||Parallel Assignment|
|Masking:||Single (Care Provider)|
|Primary Purpose:||Supportive Care|
|Official Title:||Functional Evaluation of Conventional Venous Access Port (Celsite®) Versus Venous Access Port With Tangential Outlet (Vortex®) : a Prospective Randomized Pilot Study|
|Study Start Date :||September 2004|
|Primary Completion Date :||December 2004|
|Study Completion Date :||March 2005|
- Evaluation of the difference in difficulty in blood drawing between the 2 types of ports when accessing the port under identical maintenance procedure according to the guidelines in the University Hospitals Leuven. [ Time Frame: up to a maximum of 6 months after insertion ]
- Evaluation of the difference in one-way or bidirectional occlusion incidence between these 2 types of ports, when accessing the port under identical maintenance procedure according to the guidelines in the University Hospitals Leuven. [ Time Frame: up to a maximum of 6 months after insertion ]
- Evaluation of the difference in filling time for blood sampling between these 2 types of ports when using a standard 10 ml vacuum blood tube and a 19 G Gripper® needle. [ Time Frame: immediately after insertion and up to a maximum of 6 months afterwards ]
- Evaluation of the ease of use (ease of access) between these 2 types of ports when accessing the port. [ Time Frame: up to a maximum of 6 months after insertion ]
To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contact information provided by the sponsor.
Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier (NCT number): NCT00484848
|University Hospitals Leuven|
|Leuven, Belgium, 3000|
|Principal Investigator:||Marguerite Stas, MD PhD||Katholieke Universiteit Leuven|