ArticlePloS one2021
Risk factors assessment for radiographically guided port implantations with forearm access.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pacemaker leads as a potential source of problems in patients who might need a central venous access port.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPort implantations at the forearm are associated with an increased risk of relevant vein thrombosis. Therefore, with this study we sought to identify the responsible risk factors to improve technical quality of the method.
methodsThis is a retrospective analysis of 313 patients with port implantation at the forearm in 2019. Then, exploratory statistics were conducted comprising Cox-Regression and Kaplan-Meier-Analyses.
resultsMean age was 60 ± 14 years. 232 (74%) of the patients were female. No early infection was observed. 29 late infections and 57 cases of thrombosis occurred. In only 9% of the patients with thrombosis hospital admission was necessary for treatment. Median interval to the diagnosis of thrombosis was 23 days; inter-quartile-range: 16-75. Mean interval to elective port explantation was 227 ± 128 days. There was no effect of occurrence of thrombosis of the interventionalist, the assistance nor of several technical aspects. However, there was a significantly lower risk of thrombosis for primary implanted port system compared to replacement ports, Hazard-ratio: 0.34 [Confidence interval: 0.172, 0.674], p = 0.002. Age was a significant risk factor for late infections, Hazard-ratio: 3.35 [Confidence interval:1.84, 6.07], p < 0.0001.
conclusionThe main risk factor for adverse outcome after radiographically guided port implantation at the forearm is the type of the implanted port system. The reason for that might not be the material itself but the experience of a team with a certain port system. Age is a risk factor for late complications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.