Many vascular access options, such as subcutaneous ports, are currently on the market for use in both medication infusion and for procedures, such as therapeutic plasma exchange and extracorporeal photopheresis. We compared the cost and time necessary to complete apheresis procedures using either Angiodynamic's Vortex or Bard's PowerFlow subcutaneous ports by reviewing our experience on two patients undergoing long-term apheresis treatments with at least 10 procedures with each type of port. We analyzed the cost of needles and thrombolytic therapy, staff time, overall procedure length, and the total time the patient was in the apheresis unit. We also compared flow rates and alarm rates between the two ports. In this small pilot study, use of the PowerFlow port resulted in significant cost and time savings, with mixed results for flow rates. Our results need to be confirmed in a larger patient population prior to recommending wide implementation of Bard's PowerFlow port.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
|---|---|
| http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jca.21678 | DOI Listing |
Publication Analysis
Top Keywords
Similar Publications
Use of a novel configuration of ports for patients needing intermittent long-term apheresis.
J Clin Apher
August 2024
Endovascular Education and Excellence, PLLC, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Article Synopsis
- The study focuses on improving vascular access for patients needing frequent apheresis by transitioning from a Vortex dual lumen port to a combination of a Powerflow port and a ClearVUE port.
- Results showed that the new port configuration significantly reduced treatment time (from 91.18 min to 77.96 min) and increased flow rates (from 61.59 mL/min to 71.89 mL/min).
- Additionally, the need for tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) was almost eliminated among those switched from the Vortex ports, indicating potential cost savings and improved efficiency in apheresis procedures.
Introduction: The PowerFlow implantable apheresis intravenous port is a venous access device for therapeutic apheresis procedures. In this case review article, we identify key similarities and differences between apheresis PowerFlow ports and traditional ports. We also list strategies that emergency departments can implement to aid in correct port identification.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFImplementation and 2-year outcomes of the first FDA-approved implantable apheresis vascular access device.
Transfusion
November 2019
Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona.
Background: Patients requiring chronic apheresis treatments typically lack sufficient peripheral venous access to support long-term therapy. Historically, central venous tunneled catheters, septum-bearing subcutaneous ports, and fistulas were used to obtain required blood flow rates for apheresis procedures. In 2017, the US Food and Drug Administration approved the first intravascular device specifically designed for apheresis therapy, the PowerFlow Implantable Apheresis IV Port.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFPerformance characteristics of the PowerFlow apheresis port: Early experience.
J Clin Apher
December 2019
Transfusion Medicine and Apheresis Service, UMass Memorial Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts.
We prospectively evaluated the Bard PowerFlow Implantable Apheresis IV Port in four patients undergoing outpatient therapeutic plasma exchange over 18 to 97 days. Three had bilateral internal jugular access ports, and one had a single left internal jugular access port for the inlet line with return via antecubital vein. Two patients receiving 5% albumin as replacement fluid achieved peak inlet flow of 99 ± 5 mL/min and 101 ± 6 mL/min, and peak plasma flow of 53 ± 6 and 47 ± 6 mL/min, respectively.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFNew subcutaneous PowerFlow port results in cost and time-savings in a busy outpatient apheresis clinic.
J Clin Apher
August 2019
Division of Laboratory Medicine, Department of Pathology, The University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama.
Many vascular access options, such as subcutaneous ports, are currently on the market for use in both medication infusion and for procedures, such as therapeutic plasma exchange and extracorporeal photopheresis. We compared the cost and time necessary to complete apheresis procedures using either Angiodynamic's Vortex or Bard's PowerFlow subcutaneous ports by reviewing our experience on two patients undergoing long-term apheresis treatments with at least 10 procedures with each type of port. We analyzed the cost of needles and thrombolytic therapy, staff time, overall procedure length, and the total time the patient was in the apheresis unit.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFWant AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!