Prolonged Duration of Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter Embedment Does not Lower the Catheter Success Rate

Outcomes in buried versus non-buried peritoneal dialysis catheters: A retrospective cohort study

AIMS

To compare the rates of infections (peritonitis and exit site infections) in patients undergoing non-buried versus buried peritoneal dialysis catheterisation for end-stage renal failure.

METHODS

A retrospective review of all patients who underwent peritoneal dialysis catheter placement by one primary surgeon between January 2008 and August 2019. Information collected included, catheter characteristics, immediate post-operative complications, date of catheter exteriorisation, date of peritoneal dialysis commencement, rate of successful catheter function at initiation of peritoneal dialysis and rates of catheter-related complications (i.e. infection, revision status and obstruction).

RESULTS

110 peritoneal dialysis catheters were inserted (43 non-buried and 67 buried peritoneal dialysis catheters). The non-buried group was associated with a higher proportion acquiring an infection than the buried group (15% vs 30%, p = 0.054). Patients with buried catheters also had a 72% and 65% decreased likelihood of experiencing a catheter-related infection and peritonitis, respectively, over time compared to patients with non-buried catheters in the unadjusted (crude incidence rate ratio 0.28, 95% confidence interval 0.11, 0.70; P = 0.003). The proportion of catheter function at first use was 85% in the non-buried group and 78% in the buried group. Patients with non-buried versus buried catheters had similar proportions of complications, including: obstructions (25.6% vs 20.9%, p = 0.770), herniation (7.0% vs 4.0%, p = 0.327) and leaks (7.0% vs 1.5%, p = 0.134).

CONCLUSION

The use of the buried peritoneal dialysis catheter technique as compared to the standard technique has revealed fewer overall catheter-related infections, particularly episodes of peritonitis and similar rates of mechanical complications in our series. In addition to that, the other benefits of buried peritoneal dialysis catheters such as lower healthcare cost, patient convenience and a viable option for patients in remote communities should prompt physicians to continue assessing suitable candidates for buried peritoneal dialysis catheters.

Efficiency and safety of using a peritoneal dialysis catheter weighted with a stainless steel ballast : the Limousin experience

Objective: To assess the recurrence of PD catheter migration after the introduction of a walnut ballast. Materials and Methods: Retrospective study from 1999 to 2014 of PD patients followed in Limousin. Were compared two groups: ballast group (patients who benefited from the establishment of stainless steel ballast at the intraperitoneal catheter extremity) with 26 patients and control group with 204 patients. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of an episode catheter’s migration after ballast’s establishment. Secondary objectives were (i) to determine the causal factors leading to the catheter weighting, (ii) to ensure the safety of the procedure on the following criteria: infectious complications, mechanicals complications, epurations criteria, and catheter’s survival. Results: More than one year after the implementation of the ballast, no recurrent migration was observed in 86.6% of cases. It wasn’t found an increased risk of infections (OR = 0.5, 95% CI [0.22, 1.13]) or mechanical complications (OR = 1.77- 95% CI [0.77, 4.05]) between the two groups. The adequation criteria were similar: KT / V total : 2.37 in the control group and 2.28 in the ballast group (p = 0.63). The survival of the ballast catheter was comparable among the two groups (p = 0.983). Three causal factors that led to the ballast were identified: automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) (OR = 0.38, 95% CI [0.16, 0.9]), the failure from the first use of the catheter (OR = 19.48, CI 95 % [7.67, 49.48]) and the incarceration of the omentum (OR = 15.84, 95% CI [5.81, 43.21]). Conclusion: The ballast used in these study appears to prevent recurrence of migration, without any impact in terms of infectious or mechanical complications, or on the dialysis criteria or on catheter’s survival. However this catheter does currently not have an EC authorization

Use of the embedded peritoneal dialysis catheter

Introduction The use of embedded peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheters is purported to offer numerous benefits over standard placement. However, the optimum period of embedment and the effect of prolonged embedment on subsequent catheter function remain unclear. Methods This retrospective observational study looked at adult patients undergoing embedded PD catheter insertion in a large tertiary referral centre in the UK. Possible predictors for catheter non-function at externalisation were investigated. These included patient factors (age, sex, diabetic status, body mass index, ethnicity, smoking status, previous surgery, estimated glomerular filtration rate), procedural factors (modality of surgery, concurrent surgical procedure), duration of catheter embedment and catheter damage at externalisation. Outcomes examined were proportion of catheters functioning after externalisation, futile placement rate, surgical reintervention rate, infectious complication rate and proportion of externalised catheters lost owing to malfunction. Results Sixty-six catheters were embedded and two-thirds (n=47, 63.6%) were externalised after a median embedment period of 39.4 weeks. Of these, 25 (53.2%) functioned on externalisation. Fourteen (63.6%) of the 22 non-functioning catheters were salvaged. The overall utilisation of PD was 34/47 (72.3%) and the futile placement rate was 12.1%. Over half of the externalised catheters (n=27, 57.4%) were lost directly as a result of catheter related complications, with a median survival time of 39.4 weeks. In adjusted analysis, increasing embedment duration was significantly predictive of catheter non-function at externalisation (adjusted odds ratio: 0.957, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.929-0.985, p=0.003) while subsequent catheter loss was highly dependent on catheter function at externalisation (hazard ratio: 0.258, 95% CI: 0.112-0.594, p=0.001). Conclusions Prolonged embedment of PD catheters is associated with a significantly higher likelihood of catheter dysfunction following externalisation, which is in turn associated with subsequent catheter loss. We have discontinued the use of this technique in our unit.

Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter Insertion

The success of peritoneal dialysis as renal-replacement therapy depends on a well-functioning peritoneal catheter. Knowledge of best practices in catheter insertion can minimize the risk of catheter complications that lead to peritoneal dialysis failure. The catheter placement procedure begins with preoperative assessment of the patient to determine the most appropriate catheter type, insertion site, and exit site location. Preoperative preparation of the patient is an instrumental step in facilitating the performance of the procedure, avoiding untoward events, and promoting the desired outcome. Catheter insertion methods include percutaneous needle-guidewire with or without image guidance, open surgical dissection, peritoneoscopic procedure, and surgical laparoscopy. The insertion technique used often depends on the geographic availability of material resources and local provider expertise in placing catheters. Independent of the catheter implantation approach, adherence to a number of universal details is required to ensure the best opportunity for creating a successful long-term peritoneal access. Finally, appropriate postoperative care and catheter break-in enables a smooth transition to dialysis therapy.

Embedded Catheters: Minimizing Excessive Embedment Time and Futile Placement while Maintaining Procedure Benefits

BACKGROUND

Embedding peritoneal catheters far in advance of anticipated need may successfully commit patients to their modality choice and reduce central venous catheter use but can be complicated by excessive embedment periods and futile catheter placement.

OBJECTIVE

Embedded catheter outcomes were studied to identify factors that minimize inordinate embedment time and futile placement while maintaining procedure benefits.

METHODS

Clinical and laboratory data were examined in 107 patients with embedded catheters that were either externalized, remained embedded, or were futilely placed.

RESULTS

Externalization of 84 catheters was performed after a median embedment period of 9.4 months. Flow dysfunction occurred in 14.3% of externalized catheters. Overall function rate was 98.8% after laparoscopic revision. One patient changed their mind about modality choice. Except for 1 patient hospitalized acutely in a facility unfamiliar with embedded catheters, none remaining on a peritoneal dialysis pathway initiated dialysis with a central venous catheter. Including catheters with extremely long embedment periods, the incidence of futile placement was 13.1%. Multiple regression analysis identified estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and serum albumin as the 2 variables best associated with catheter embedment duration (r(2) = 0.44, p < 0.0001). Diabetic nephropathy was statistically more likely to be associated with lower serum albumin values (p < 0.0001); however, no association was noted between diabetic status and embedment duration (p = 0.62).

CONCLUSIONS

Timing of the embedment procedure should include appraisal of both eGFR and serum albumin. Appropriate consideration of these values together may help minimize excessive embedment periods and decrease futile placements while preserving procedure benefits.

Peritoneal dialysis catheter implantation by nephrologists is associated with higher rates of peritoneal dialysis utilization: a population-based study

BACKGROUND

The likelihood of peritoneal dialysis (PD) utilization following a PD catheter insertion attempt is poorly described. We explored the risk factors for PD nonuse, focusing on the method of PD catheter implantation.

METHODS

This population-based retrospective cohort study employed Ontario administrative health data to identify 3886 predialysis adults who had an incident PD catheter implantation between 2002 and 2010. The impact of the method of catheter implantation including open-surgical (open, n = 1884), surgical-laparoscopic (laparoscopic, n = 1154), nephrology-percutaneous (nephrology, n = 498) and radiology-percutaneous (radiology, n = 350) on rates of PD utilization (defined as four consecutive weeks of PD) was examined.

RESULTS

Eighty-three percent of study patients received PD. After adjustment, relative to patients with openly inserted catheters, PD utilization was greater for those with nephrology-inserted catheters [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 1.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.29-1.95] and similar for radiology-inserted catheters [aHR 1.16, 95% CI 0.94-1.43] or laparoscopic-inserted catheters [aHR 0.97 (95% CI 0.86-1.09)]. Among PD nonusers, death occurred in 10% of the open group, 6% of the laparoscopic group, 27% of the radiology group and in fewer than 3% of the nephrology group. Sixty-nine percent received hemodialysis in the open group, 63% in the laparoscopic group, 61% in the radiology group and 88% in the nephrology group. Those remaining predialysis comprised 12% of the open group, 22% of the laparoscopic group, 11% of the radiology group and <3% of the nephrology group.

CONCLUSIONS

Nephrology insertion resulted in lower overall rates of PD nonuse, particularly due to death or remaining predialysis. Greater use may be related to insertion timing, technique or greater commitment on the part of nephrologists to the success of PD.

The role of peritoneal dialysis in modern renal replacement therapy

Most patients starting dialysis can choose between peritoneal dialysis and haemodialysis. There is little evidence proving that one form of dialysis is better than the other; although there may be an early advantage to peritoneal dialysis (PD) in young patients with residual function this effect is short-lived. Technique failure develops after years on PD so dialysis modality will often change during a long dialysis career. Quality of life studies, which must be interpreted carefully, indicate that patients require information about the impact of dialysis on their lifestyle as well as health-related outcomes so that they can choose the most suitable dialysis modality. Increasing numbers of frail elderly patients are starting dialysis; support in the home by nursing staff may facilitate the use of PD in this group. In the UK guidelines prioritise the patient's choice of dialysis modality (where feasible) based on good quality predialysis education. Cost of treatment is generally lower on PD, which is particularly recommended for patients with residual renal function and few comorbidities.