Totally implantable venous access devices, or ports, are essential in the therapeutic management of patients who require long-term intermittent intravenous therapy. Totally implantable venous access devices guarantee safe infusion of chemotherapy, blood transfusion, parenteral nutrition, as well as repeated blood samples. Minimizing the need for frequent vascular access, totally implantable venous access devices also improve the patient's quality of life. Nonetheless, totally implantable venous access devices are not free from complications. Among those, infection is the most relevant, affecting patients' morbidity and mortality-both in the hospital or outpatient setting-and increasing healthcare costs. Knowledge of pathogenesis and risk factors of totally implantable venous access device-related infections is crucial to prevent this condition by adopting proper insertion bundles and maintenance bundles based on the best available evidence. Early diagnosis and prompt treatment of infection are of paramount importance. As a totally implantable venous access device-related infection occurs, device removal or a conservative approach should be chosen in treating this complication. For both prevention and therapy, antimicrobial lock is a major matter of controversy and a promising field for future clinical studies. This article reviews current evidences in terms of epidemiology, pathogenesis and risk factors, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of totally implantable venous access device-related infections.

In-line filtration has a protective effect for postoperative phlebitis and prolongs cannula lifespan during peripheral venous cannulation in surgical patients.

This increase in cross-sectional basilic and brachial vein diameters was not different to that obtained with the elastic tube tourniquet.

No abstract

Background: In a previous trial, in-line filtration significantly prevented postoperative phlebitis associated with short peripheral venous cannulation. This study aims to describe the cost-effectiveness of in-line filtration in reducing phlebitis and examine patients’ perception of in-hospital vascular access management with and without in-line filtration. Methods: We analysed costs associated with in-line filtration: these data were prospectively recorded during the previous trial. Furthermore, we performed a follow-up for all the 268 patients enrolled in this trial. Among these, 213 patients responded and completed 6 months after hospital discharge questionnaires evaluating the perception of and satisfaction with the management of their vascular access. Results: In-line filtration group required 95.60€ more than the no-filtration group (a mean of € 0.71/patient). In terms of satisfaction with the perioperative management of their short peripheral venous cannulation, 110 (82%) and 103 (76.9%) patients, respectively, for in-line filtration and control group, completed this survey. Within in-line filtration group, 97.3% of patients were satisfied/strongly satisfied; if compared with previous experiences on short peripheral venous cannulation, 11% of them recognised in-line filtration as a relevant causative factor in determining their satisfaction. Among patients within the control group, 93.2% were satisfied/strongly satisfied, although up to 30% of them had experienced postoperative phlebitis. At the qualitative interview, they recognised no difference than previous experiences on short peripheral venous cannulation, and mentioned postoperative phlebitis as a common event that ‘normally occurs’ during a hospital stay. Conclusion: In-line filtration is cost-effective in preventing postoperative phlebitis, and it seems to contribute to increasing patient satisfaction and reducing short peripheral venous cannulation–related discomfort