Replacement tunnelled dialysis catheters for haemodialysis access: Same site, new site, or exchange — A multivariate analysis and risk score

Long-term outcome of posterior approach insertion of tunneled cuffed catheter: A single clinic retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

For patients who rely on a tunneled cuffed catheter, the internal jugular vein is the preferred site of insertion. A few studies have suggested that the posterior approach for central lines is equivalent or better in comparison to the conventional central approach. However, there have been fewer studies examining tunneled cuffed catheter insertion using the posterior approach. We have performed many posterior insertions of tunneled cuffed catheters in our practice, and because the technique has not yet been comprehensively studied for long-term use, we performed a retrospective study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of posterior approach for tunneled cuffed catheter in maintained hemodialysis patients.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted of 200 hemodialysis patients who were treated with tunneled cuffed catheters over a period of 3 years. There were 104 patients in the study group, as well as a 96-patient control group, who underwent catheter insertion by central approach. The clinical follow-up data were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

All catheters were successfully placed. The mean primary patency days per catheter were 712 catheter days for the study group and 585 catheter days for the control group. The episode of catheter infection was similar in both groups (p = 0.874), but the case of total catheter dysfunction was significantly lower in the study group compared to the control group (p = 0.006). The cumulative patency of catheters was higher in the study group than that in the control group (p = 0.02), while patient survival was the same in the two groups (p = 0.325).

CONCLUSION

The posterior approach is safe, and similar infection rates were observed with lower dysfunction rates compared to tunneled catheter insertion by the conventional central approach.

A Modified de novo Insertion Technique for Catheter Replacement in Elderly Hemodialysis Patients: A Single Clinic Retrospective Analysis

Purpose

For patients who rely on a tunneled cuffed catheter, replacement or catheter removal is typically necessary. We recently performed a modified de novo insertion technique for catheter replacement in our practice. As the technique has not yet been studied comprehensively, we performed a retrospective study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of de novo placed catheter without delay for catheter replacement in elderly hemodialysis patients.

Methods

A retrospective review of 164 elderly patients was conducted during a period of three years. There were 84 patients in study group, as well as 80 patients in a control group, who had catheter replacement by guidewire exchange technique. Clinical follow-up data was collected.

Results

All catheters were placed successfully. The mean survival time per catheter was 641 catheter days (study group) and 485 catheter days (control group). The primary patency rates of 30 days were 97.7% (study group) and 90% (control group), respectively, with statistically significant difference (p = 0.04). The incidence of catheter infection was not statistically significantly different in both groups (p = 0.586), but the case of catheter dysfunction was significantly lower in study group compared to control group (p = 0.003).

Conclusions

The de novo placed catheter without delay technique for catheter replacement near the pre-existing venotomy site is safe, and boasts similar infection rates with lower dysfunction rates compared to tunneled catheter insertion by guidewire exchange technique.

The safety and efficacy of bedside removal of tunneled hemodialysis catheters by nephrology trainees

BACKGROUND

Some nephrologists remove tunneled hemodialysis catheters (TDC) at the bedside, but this practice has never been formally studied. Our hypothesis was that bedside removal of TDC is a safe and effective procedure affording prompt removal, including in cases of suspected infection.

METHODS

We reviewed our consecutive 3-year experience (2007-2009) with bedside TDC removal at the University of Mississippi Renal Fellowship Program. Data were collected on multiple patients and procedure-related variables, success and complication rates. Association between clinical characteristics and biomarkers of inflammation and myocardial damage was examined using correlation coefficients.

RESULTS

Of 55 inpatient TDC removals (90.9% from internal jugular location), 50 (90.9%) were completed without hands-on assistance from faculty. Indications at the time of removal included bacteremia, fever or clinical sepsis with hemodynamic instability or respiratory failure. All procedures were successful, with no cuff retention noted; one patient experienced prolonged bleeding which was controlled with local pressure. Peak C-reactive protein (available in 63.6% of cohort) was 12.9 ± 8.4 mg/dL (reference range: <0.49) and median troponin-I (34% available) was 0.534 ng/mL (IQR 0.03-0.9) (reference range: <0.034) and they did not correlate with each other. Abnormal troponin-I was associated with proven bacteremia (p < 0.05) but not with systolic and diastolic BP or clinical sepsis.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that bedside removal of TDC remains a safe and effective procedure regardless of site or indications. Accordingly, TDC removal should be an integral part of competent Nephrology training.