Skip to main content
SIR 2025 Event Main banner
BSCI - Consideration Cases Ad 1
Merit/DPSSME Siege
Back

SIR 2025

Venous Interventions

Traditional Poster

Session: Traditional Poster Presentations

120 - Chest Port in Patients Breast Cancer: Any Difference in Overall Complication Rate Between Ports Ipsilateral to and Those Contralateral to Breast Cancer?

Monday, March 31, 2025
12:10 PM – 1:10 PM CT
Location: Music City Center, Expo Poster Area
Purpose: It is common practice for patients with breast cancer (BC) to receive a chest port contralateral to their malignancy to avoid lymphedema. However, previous studies demonstrated no increased incidence of lymphedema in ports placed ipsilateral to breast cancer {1, 2}. However, it is uncertain if there is no difference in the rate of overall complications between ports ipsilateral to and contralateral to breast cancer. The purpose of this study was to compare the rate of over all complications between ports placed ipsilateral to and contralateral to BC, and to determine if ipsilateral port placement was an independent risk factor of overall complication. 

Materials and Methods: Among 4424 ports placed in 4265 patients between 2013 and 2023, 391 ports were placed in patients with BC without history of bilateral mastectomies. Among these 60 were placed ipsilateral to (ipsilateral group) and 331 placed contralateral to BC (contralateral group). Patient characteristics (age, gender, BMI, diabetes, steroid/anticoagulant/ antiplatelet agent use, leukopenia /neutropenia/ thrombocytopenia/ hypoalbuminemia at the time of port placement) and port characteristics (right vs. left, lumen number, catheter tip location, and prior port removal) were recorded. The rate of overall complications (infectious, mechanical, venous thrombotic and skin-related) was compared between groups using Poisson regression. Univariate proportional subdistribution hazards regression (PSHREG) was used to determine if ipsilateral chest port placement in breast cancer is an independent risk factor for port complication. 

Results: The cumulative follow-up period was not significantly different between the groups (Ipsilateral: 27,608 catheter-days, median: 327 catheter-days, range: 20-1,661 catheter-days; Contralateral: 133,540 catheter-days, median: 307 catheter-days, range:1-2,085 catheter-days P = 0.62). A total of 61/391 patients developed complications (15.7%, 0.32 complications/1000 catheter days), the median time to complications was 122 days (range: 1-1661 days). No significant difference in the rate of complications is noted between groups (Ipsilateral: 9/60 (15%), 0.32/1000 catheter-days vs. Contralateral: 52/331 (15.7%), 0.32/1000 catheter-days, P=0.99). Univariate PSHREG analysis also indicated that ipsilateral port placement was not an independent risk for complications (Hazard ratio: 1.01, 95% confidence interval 0.50-2.05, P= 0.97). 

Conclusion: Port placement ipsilateral to breast cancer does not seem to be an independent risk factor for overall complications.