Outcomes of surgical and radiologic placed implantable central venous access ports

BackgroundRecent literature suggests implantable central venous access ports (ICVAPs) can be placed by interventional radiologists with fewer complications and lower expenses when compared with surgeons. An analysis of outcomes and expenses of ICVAP placement by service was conducted.MethodsThree hundred sixty-eight ICVAPs were placed over 3 years at a 230-bed community teaching hospital. A retrospective review of these procedures was conducted. Data recorded for each procedure included patient demographics, reason for placement, indwelling port days, complications, billed charges, and reimbursement.ResultsTwo hundred seventy-six (75%) ICVAPs were placed by interventional radiologists, while surgeons placed the remaining 92 ports (25%). Short-term complications were identified in 7 interventional radiologist–placed ports (2.5%) and 1 surgically placed port (1.1%), P = .42. Billed charges were greater for interventional radiologist–placed ports ($5,301 vs $4,552, P = .0001). In contrast, reimbursement was greater for surgically placed ports: interventional radiologist 31.3% of charges, surgery 42.8%, P = .049.ConclusionReimbursement and charges demonstrated significant differences between surgeons and interventional radiologists. Prior assertions that ports placed by interventional radiologists are less expensive with fewer complications may no longer be valid.