Mechanic and surface properties of central-venous port catheters after removal: A comparison of polyurethane and silicon rubber materials.

Central venous port devices made of two different polymeric materials, thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) and silicone rubber (SiR), were compared due their material properties. Both naïve catheters as well as catheters after removal from patients were investigated. In lab experiments the influence of various chemo-therapeutic solutions on material properties was investigated, whereas the samples after removal were compared according to the implanted time in patient. The macroscopic, mechanical performance was assessed with dynamic, specially adapted tests for elasticity. The degradation status of the materials was determined with common tools of polymer characterisation, such as infrared spectroscopy, molecular weight measurements and various methods of thermal analysis. The surface morphology was analysed using scanning electron microscopy. A correlation between material properties and clinical performance was proposed. The surface morphology and chemical composition of the polyurethane catheter materials can potentially result in increased susceptibility of the catheter to bloodstream infections and thrombotic complications. The higher mechanic failure, especially with increasing implantation time of the silicone catheters is related to the lower mechanical performance compared to the polyurethane material as well as loss of barium sulphate filler particles near the surface of the catheter. This results in preformed microscopic notches, which act as predetermined sites of fracture.

Polyurethane versus silicone catheters for central venous port devices implanted at the forearm.

PURPOSE: We aimed to analyse short and long-term complications of polyurethane (PU) versus silicone catheters used in totally implantable venous-access ports (TIVAPs) implanted at the forearm. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 698 consecutively implanted TIVAPs was performed. Primary end-points were defined as rates of major complications associated with either type of central venous port catheter. Technical success rate, device service interval as well as minor complications not requiring port explantation were defined as secondary end-points. RESULTS: A total of 698 port devices were implanted in 681 patients, 396 equipped with a PU catheter, 302 with a silicone catheter. The technical success rate was 99.9% with no major periprocedural complications. During follow-up a total of 211 complications in 146 patients were observed (1.0/1000 catheter days), 183 occurred associated with PU catheters (1.8/100 catheter days), 28 (0.3/1000 catheter days) with silicone catheters (log rank test p < 0.0001). Catheter-related bloodstream infections as well as thrombotic complications occurred significantly more frequently with PU catheters, while silicone catheters exhibited a trend towards a higher rate of mechanical failure such as disconnection or catheter rupture. Major complications requiring explantation of the device occurred more frequently with PU-based catheters (10.6%) compared to silicone catheter carrying ports (4.6%, log rank test p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: PU catheters are more susceptible to catheter-related infections and exhibit a higher thrombogenicity, compared to silicone catheters. Silicone catheters instead exhibit a trend towards decreased mechanical stability.