PURPOSE: A randomized, prospective evaluation of three high-flow hemodialysis catheters. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Ninety-four patients were randomly assigned 113 Tesio, Ash split, and Opti-flow catheters from December 1998 through June 1999. Insertion times, procedural complications, and ease of insertion were recorded. Mean catheter flow rates were recorded at first dialysis, 30 days, and 90 days. Patency, catheter survival, and catheter-related infections were evaluated. RESULTS: Thirty-eight Ash split, 39 Opti-flow, and 36 Tesio catheters were placed. Tesio mean insertion time (41.5 min) was significantly longer than Ash split (29.4 min) or Opti-flow (29.6 min) (P =.004). There were four complications related to Tesio catheters (three cases of pericatheter bleeding, one air embolism), one related to an Opti-flow catheter (pericatheter bleeding), and zero related to Ash split catheters. Opti-flow and Ash split catheters were significantly easier to insert than Tesio catheters (P =.041). Mean flow rates were not significantly different among the catheters initially (P =.112), at 30 days (P =.281), or at 90 days (P =.112). Catheter-related infection rates per 100 catheter days were 0.12 for Ash split, 0.35 for Opti-flow, and 0.14 for TESIO: Median catheter survival was 302 days for Ash split, 176 days for Opti-flow, and 228 days for TESIO: CONCLUSIONS: Opti-Flow and Ash split catheters were faster and easier to place than Tesio catheters. There was no difference in hemodialysis flow rates or catheter survival.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: A randomized, prospective evaluation of three high-flow hemodialysis catheters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-four patients were randomly assigned 113 Tesio, Ash split, and Opti-flow catheters from December 1998 through June 1999. Insertion times, procedural complications, and ease of insertion were recorded. Mean catheter flow rates were recorded at first dialysis, 30 days, and 90 days. Patency, catheter survival, and catheter-related infections were evaluated. RESULTS: Thirty-eight Ash split, 39 Opti-flow, and 36 Tesio catheters were placed. Tesio mean insertion time (41.5 min) was significantly longer than Ash split (29.4 min) or Opti-flow (29.6 min) (P =.004). There were four complications related to Tesio catheters (three cases of pericatheter bleeding, one air embolism), one related to an Opti-flow catheter (pericatheter bleeding), and zero related to Ash split catheters. Opti-flow and Ash split catheters were significantly easier to insert than Tesio catheters (P =.041). Mean flow rates were not significantly different among the catheters initially (P =.112), at 30 days (P =.281), or at 90 days (P =.112). Catheter-related infection rates per 100 catheter days were 0.12 for Ash split, 0.35 for Opti-flow, and 0.14 for TESIO: Median catheter survival was 302 days for Ash split, 176 days for Opti-flow, and 228 days for TESIO: CONCLUSIONS:Opti-Flow and Ash split catheters were faster and easier to place than Tesio catheters. There was no difference in hemodialysis flow rates or catheter survival.
Authors: Douglas M Silverstein; Scott O Trerotola; Timothy Clark; Garth James; Wing Ng; Amy Dwyer; Marius C Florescu; Roman Shingarev; Stephen R Ash Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2018-10-11 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Mathijs van Oevelen; Alferso C Abrahams; Marcel C Weijmer; Tjerko Nagtegaal; Friedo W Dekker; Joris I Rotmans; Sabine Ca Meijvis Journal: J Vasc Access Date: 2018-10-21 Impact factor: 2.283