ArticleInterventional radiology (Higashimatsuyama-shi (Japan)2026
Complication-related Removal of Central Venous Ports: Comparison of Subclavian and Upper Arm Approaches.
Article in Interventional radiology (Higashimatsuyama-shi (Japan), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare overall and cause-specific complication-related central venous port removal, particularly infection-related removal and catheter fracture, and time-to-event outcomes between the subclavian and upper arm approaches. Material and Methods: This retrospective study included 1,195 patients who underwent ultrasound-guided central venous port implantation via the subclavian (n = 706) or upper arm (n = 489) approach between 2012 and 2021. Comparative analyses were restricted to a maximum of 5 years after implantation. A total of 621,902 catheter-days were analyzed. The evaluated outcomes were overall complication-related central venous port removal and cause-specific removals, including infection-related removal, catheter fracture, malposition, occlusion, leakage, and venous thrombosis. Crude incidence rate ratios were estimated using Poisson regression, adjusted incidence rate ratios using a negative binomial model, and removal-free survival using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Results: Within 5 years, complication-related removals occurred in 50 patients (7.1%) in the subclavian group and 41 (8.4%) in the upper arm group. Crude incidence rates were 0.131 and 0.171 per 1,000 catheter-days, respectively (crude incidence rate ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-1.16; Conclusions: Overall complication-related removal rates were similar between the approaches, but complication profiles differed.
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.