{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,9,11]],"date-time":"2026-09-11T00:47:50Z","timestamp":1789087670115,"version":"build-2803163510"},"reference-count":19,"publisher":"Cambridge University Press (CUP)","issue":"6","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2024,1,26]],"date-time":"2024-01-26T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1706227200000},"content-version":"unspecified","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/terms"}],"content-domain":{"domain":["cambridge.org"],"crossmark-restriction":true},"short-container-title":["Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol."],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2024,6]]},"abstract":"<jats:title>Abstract<\/jats:title><jats:sec id=\"S0899823X24000011_as1\"><jats:title>Objective:<\/jats:title><jats:p>Port-a-caths are implanted intravascular chest ports that enable venous access. With more port placements performed by interventional radiologists, it is important to discern differences in infection and complication rates between double- and single-lumen ports.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec id=\"S0899823X24000011_as2\"><jats:title>Methods:<\/jats:title><jats:p>We retrospectively reviewed 1,385 port placements over 2 years at the University of Miami. Patients were grouped by single- or double-lumen ports. Data on duration of catheter stay, bloodstream infections, malfunctions, and other complications (fibrin sheath, thrombosis, catheter malposition) were collected. Multivariate Cox regression was performed to identify variables predicting port infection.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec id=\"S0899823X24000011_as3\"><jats:title>Results:<\/jats:title><jats:p>The mean patient age was 58.8 years; the mean BMI was 26.9 kg\/m<jats:sup>2<\/jats:sup>; and 61.5% of these patients were female. Our search revealed 791 double-lumen ports (57.1%) and 594 single-lumen ports (42.9%). The median follow-up was 668 days (range, 2\u20131,297). Double-lumen ports were associated with significantly higher rates of bacteremia (2.78% vs 0.84%;<jats:italic>P<\/jats:italic>= .02), port malfunction (8.3% vs 2.0%;<jats:italic>P<\/jats:italic>&lt; .001), fibrin sheath formation (2.2% vs 0.5%;<jats:italic>P<\/jats:italic>&lt; .02), catheter tip malposition (1.0% vs 0;<jats:italic>P<\/jats:italic>= .01), and catheter-associated thrombosis (1.4% vs 0;<jats:italic>P<\/jats:italic>= .003). Multivariate Cox regression analysis, after adjusting for other variables, showed that double-lumen chest ports had 2.98 times (95% confidence interval, 1.12\u20137.94) the hazard rate of single-lumen ports for developing bloodstream infection (<jats:italic>P<\/jats:italic>= .029).<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec id=\"S0899823X24000011_as4\"><jats:title>Conclusions:<\/jats:title><jats:p>Double-lumen chest ports are associated with increased risk for bloodstream infection, malfunction, fibrin sheath formation, catheter tip malposition, and catheter-associated thrombosis. Interventional radiologists may consider placing single-lumen ports if clinically feasible; however, future studies are needed to determine clinical significance. The study limitations included the retrospective study design and the potential loss of patient follow-up.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.1017\/ice.2024.1","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2024,1,26]],"date-time":"2024-01-26T01:52:35Z","timestamp":1706233955000},"page":"698-702","update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/policypage","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":6,"title":["A comparative analysis of infection and complication rates between single- and double-lumen ports"],"prefix":"10.1017","volume":"45","author":[{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0001-7873-2234","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Konrad M.","family":"Kozlowski","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Hamed","family":"Jalaeian","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Levi M.","family":"Travis","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Joseph F.","family":"Zikria","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"56","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2024,1,26]]},"reference":[{"key":"S0899823X24000011_ref2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1178223418771909","DOI":"10.1177\/1178223418771909","article-title":"Upper-extremity deep vein thrombosis in patients with breast cancer with chest versus arm central venous port catheters","volume":"12","author":"Tippit","year":"2018","journal-title":"Breast Cancer (Auckl)"},{"key":"S0899823X24000011_ref11","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"645","DOI":"10.1016\/S1473-3099(07)70235-9","article-title":"Intravascular catheter-related infections: advances in diagnosis, prevention, and management","volume":"7","author":"Raad","year":"2007","journal-title":"Lancet Infect Dis"},{"key":"S0899823X24000011_ref17","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"2385","DOI":"10.1097\/01.CCM.0000084843.31852.01","article-title":"Rates of infection for single-lumen versus multilumen central venous catheters: a meta-analysis","volume":"31","author":"Dezfulian","year":"2003","journal-title":"Crit Care Med"},{"key":"S0899823X24000011_ref1","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"767","DOI":"10.1023\/A:1008392423469","article-title":"Totally implantable central venous access ports for long-term chemotherapy. A prospective study analyzing complications and costs of 333 devices with a minimum follow-up of 180 days","volume":"9","author":"Biffi","year":"1998","journal-title":"Ann Oncol"},{"key":"S0899823X24000011_ref19","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"e162","DOI":"10.1093\/cid\/cir257","article-title":"Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections","volume":"52","author":"O\u2019Grady","year":"2011","journal-title":"Clin Infect Dis"},{"key":"S0899823X24000011_ref10","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1586","DOI":"10.1002\/cncr.22942","article-title":"Risk factors for early catheter-related infections in cancer patients","volume":"110","author":"Penel","year":"2007","journal-title":"Cancer"},{"key":"S0899823X24000011_ref4","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"156","DOI":"10.1002\/jso.2930490306","article-title":"Comparison of infections in Hickman and implanted port catheters in adult solid-tumor patients","volume":"49","author":"Pegues","year":"1992","journal-title":"J Surg Oncol"},{"key":"S0899823X24000011_ref3","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"596","DOI":"10.1200\/JCO.1986.4.4.596","article-title":"Improved methods for venous access: the port-a-cath, a totally implanted catheter system","volume":"4","author":"Strum","year":"1986","journal-title":"J Clin Oncol"},{"key":"S0899823X24000011_ref7","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"913","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ejso.2011.06.016","article-title":"Totally implantable venous access port systems and risk factors for complications: a one-year prospective study in a cancer centre","volume":"37","author":"Narducci","year":"2011","journal-title":"Eur J Surg Oncol"},{"key":"S0899823X24000011_ref18","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"e0282290","DOI":"10.1371\/journal.pone.0282290","article-title":"Risk factors of catheter-associated bloodstream infection: systematic review and meta-analysis","volume":"18","author":"Lafuente Cabrero","year":"2023","journal-title":"PLoS One"},{"key":"S0899823X24000011_ref6","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1124","DOI":"10.1245\/s10434-007-9783-z","article-title":"Reasons for explantation of totally implantable access ports: a multivariate analysis of 385 consecutive patients","volume":"15","author":"Fischer","year":"2008","journal-title":"Ann Surg Oncol"},{"key":"S0899823X24000011_ref8","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"200","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jvsv.2015.10.008","article-title":"Risk factors for infectious and noninfectious complications of totally implantable venous catheters in cancer patients","volume":"4","author":"Zerati","year":"2016","journal-title":"J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord"},{"key":"S0899823X24000011_ref5","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1168","DOI":"10.7326\/0003-4819-119-12-199312150-00003","article-title":"Infectious morbidity associated with long-term use of venous access devices in patients with cancer","volume":"119","author":"Groeger","year":"1993","journal-title":"Ann Intern Med"},{"key":"S0899823X24000011_ref16","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"3793","DOI":"10.1007\/s00520-018-4597-z","article-title":"Objective assessment of WHO\/ECOG performance status","volume":"27","author":"Sok","year":"2019","journal-title":"Support Care Cancer"},{"key":"S0899823X24000011_ref13","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"241","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ejso.2008.01.020","article-title":"An 11-year retrospective study of totally implanted central venous access ports: complications and patient satisfaction","volume":"35","author":"Ignatov","year":"2009","journal-title":"Eur J Surg Oncol"},{"key":"S0899823X24000011_ref9","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"309","DOI":"10.1097\/MD.0b013e318275ffe1","article-title":"Clinical outcome after a totally implantable venous access port-related infection in cancer patients: a prospective study and review of the literature","volume":"91","author":"Lebeaux","year":"2012","journal-title":"Medicine (Baltimore)"},{"key":"S0899823X24000011_ref14","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"66","DOI":"10.1159\/000339308","article-title":"Right- and left-subclavian vein port-a-cath systems: comparison of complications","volume":"49","author":"Tsai","year":"2012","journal-title":"Eur Surg Res"},{"key":"S0899823X24000011_ref15","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"932","DOI":"10.1038\/bjc.2017.264","article-title":"Right or left? Side selection for a totally implantable vascular access device: a randomised observational study","volume":"117","author":"Lin","year":"2017","journal-title":"Br J Cancer"},{"key":"S0899823X24000011_ref12","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"554","DOI":"10.1001\/jama.282.6.554","article-title":"Cost-effectiveness of antiseptic-impregnated central venous catheters for the prevention of catheter-related bloodstream infection","volume":"282","author":"Veenstra","year":"1999","journal-title":"JAMA"}],"container-title":["Infection Control &amp; Hospital Epidemiology"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/services\/aop-cambridge-core\/content\/view\/S0899823X24000011","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2024,11,9]],"date-time":"2024-11-09T06:09:14Z","timestamp":1731132554000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/product\/identifier\/S0899823X24000011\/type\/journal_article"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2024,1,26]]},"references-count":19,"journal-issue":{"issue":"6","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2024,6]]}},"alternative-id":["S0899823X24000011"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/ice.2024.1","relation":{},"ISSN":["0899-823X","1559-6834"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0899-823X","type":"print"},{"value":"1559-6834","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2024,1,26]]},"assertion":[{"value":"\u00a9 The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America","name":"copyright","label":"Copyright","group":{"name":"copyright_and_licensing","label":"Copyright and Licensing"}}]}}