Advantages and disadvantages of femoral port systems in hematоlogical patients with superior vena cava syndrome

Background. In the superior vena cava syndrome, vein catheterisation provides an alternative for vascular access. Few reports describe the usage of femoral ports.Aim. Description of pros and contras for femoral port installation in patients with haematological malignancies and the superior vena cava syndrome.Materials and methods. This prospective non-randomised, single-centre study included 163 haematological patients implanted 72 ports in superior vena cava, 35 — in inferior vena cava and inserted with 156 non-tunnelled femoral catheters. Catheterisation properties, complications, duration of use and reasons for port and catheter removal were registered.Results. No significant differences were observed between ports in superior and inferior vena cava as per the frequency of urokinase use in catheter dysfunction, catheter dislocation, catheter-associated bloodstream and pocket infections. Differences were revealed in the catheter-associated thrombosis rate, which was higher with femoral access (17.0 % or 0.9/1000 catheter days vs. 8.3 % or 0.2/1000 catheter days, p = 0.017). Ports in inferior vena cava had a lesser duration of use than in superior vena cava (p = 0.0001). Unlike femoral ports, non-tunnelled femoral catheters had higher rates of catheter-associated thrombosis (9/1000 vs. 0.9/1000 catheter days, p = 0.002) and infection (4.9/1000 vs. 0.3/1000 catheter days, p = 0.002). One lymphoma therapy course required one femoral port or 1 to 14 (median 3) non-tunnelled femoral catheters.Conclusion. Femoral port implantation is a necessary measure in patients with the superior vena cava syndrome. It has advantages in terms of catheterisation frequency, lower infectious and thrombotic complication rates compared to non-tunnelled femoral catheters.