An interventional study of Vortex port and Celsite port in Hematologic Disease, sponsored by Universitaire Ziekenhuizen KU Leuven. Completed at 1 site in Belgium. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2009-01-26.
Sponsored by Universitaire Ziekenhuizen KU Leuven · Not applicable, Interventional, and Supportive care
Totally implanted venous access ports allow a safe delivery of medication, mainly chemotherapy, but are also used for blood sampling. This last procedure is not always successful, as it appeared from a nurse's survey in different hospitals in Flanders, including the University Hospitals in Leuven, Belgium. In 3 to 29 percent of the attempts, blood withdrawal is impaired or not possible, as an intermittent or permanent fact. This is in line with international literature data where difficulty in blood draw was noted in 6 to 26% of port accessions. Partial or total occlusion leads to discomfort for the patient, delay in therapy, higher costs and extra nursing time.
A new port system with a tangential outlet (Vortex port) was designed and according to the manufacturer, this shape will allow to cleanse the entire reservoir of the port more efficiently and avoid the formation of precipitates of medication or blood that could lead to an obstruction of the device. These precipitates are also regarded as a potential risk factor for infection.
However, only one previously published small randomised study addressed the value of the Vortex port when compared to conventional access devices: Stevens et al. were able to show a reduction in obstruction incidence from 26% to 7% with the use of the Vortex port. The incidence of blood withdrawal problems in our experience with conventional ports in University hospitals Leuven was 8% thus lower than that reported by Stevens, but this remains the most frequent problem faced by care providers and patients.
With this study, the investigators aim to compare the performance of the tangential outlet ports and that of a "conventional" port in order to assess an eventual functional difference.
460 studies on the registry are indexed under Hematologic Diseases; 105 are open to participants now.
This study's enrollment of 200 is above the median of 50 across 274 interventional studies indexed under Hematologic Diseases.
Browse Hematologic Diseases studies →Universitaire Ziekenhuizen KU Leuven is the lead sponsor of 928 studies on the registry; 261 are open to participants now.
Of its 5 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 0 (0%) have results posted.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Exclusion Criteria:
Evaluation of the difference in difficulty in blood drawing between the 2 types of ports when accessing the port under identical maintenance procedure according to the guidelines in the University Hospitals Leuven.
Time frame: up to a maximum of 6 months after insertion
Evaluation of the difference in one-way or bidirectional occlusion incidence between these 2 types of ports, when accessing the port under identical maintenance procedure according to the guidelines in the University Hospitals Leuven.
Time frame: up to a maximum of 6 months after insertion
Evaluation of the difference in filling time for blood sampling between these 2 types of ports when using a standard 10 ml vacuum blood tube and a 19 G Gripper® needle.
Time frame: immediately after insertion and up to a maximum of 6 months afterwards
Evaluation of the ease of use (ease of access) between these 2 types of ports when accessing the port.
Time frame: up to a maximum of 6 months after insertion
This study is completed, as verified in Jan 2009. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
Universitaire Ziekenhuizen KU Leuven