Literature DB >> 15602643

A prospective comparison of two types of tunneled hemodialysis catheters: the Ash Split versus the PermCath.

H O'Dwyer1, T Fotheringham, P O'Kelly, S Doyle, P Haslam, F McGrath, P Conlon, M J Lee.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: In a prospective randomized study a standard dual-tip hemodialysis catheter (PermCath, Sherwood Medical, St. Louis, MO, USA) was compared with a newer split-lumen catheter (Ash Split, Medcomp, Harleysville, PA, USA).
METHODS: Sixty-nine patients (42 men, 27 women; mean age 62 years) were randomized to receive either the Ash Split (AS) or the PermCath (PC) catheter. The catheters were inserted into the internal jugular vein. The primary outcome evaluated was blood flow measurements during the first six hemodialysis sessions. Secondary outcomes included: technical difficulties encountered at insertion, early complications and late complications requiring catheter removal or exchange.
RESULTS: A total of 69 hemodialysis catheters, 33 AS and 36 PC, were successfully inserted in the internal jugular vein (right 60, left 9) of 69 patients. Mean blood flow during dialysis (Qb) was 270.75 ml/min and 261.86 ml/hr for the AS and PC groups respectively (p = 0.27). Mean duration of catheter use was 111.7 days (range 5.4-548.9 days) and 141.2 days (range 7.0-560.9 days) in the AS and PC groups respectively (p = 0.307). Catheter failures leading to removal or exchange occurred in 20 patients: 14 in the AS group and six in the PC group. Survival curves with censored endpoints (i.e., recovery, arteriovenous fistula formation, peritoneal dialysis and transplantation) showed significantly better outcome with PermCath catheters (p = 0.024). There was no significant difference in ease of insertion or early complication rates.
CONCLUSION: The Ash Split catheter allows increased rates of blood flow during hemodialysis but this increase was not significant at the beginning (p = 0.21) or end (p = 0.27) of the first six hemodialysis sessions. The Ash Split catheter is more prone to minor complications, particularly dislodgment, than the PermCath catheter.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15602643     DOI: 10.1007/s00270-003-0230-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol        ISSN: 0174-1551            Impact factor:   2.740


  6 in total

1.  Catheter type, placement and insertion techniques for preventing catheter-related infections in chronic peritoneal dialysis patients.

Authors:  Htay Htay; David W Johnson; Jonathan C Craig; Francesco Paolo Schena; Giovanni Fm Strippoli; Allison Tong; Yeoungjee Cho
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2019-05-31

2.  A review of evolving dialysis catheter technologies.

Authors:  Martha-Grace Knuttinen; Sonia Bobra; Julian Hardman; Ron C Gaba; James T Bui; Charles A Owens
Journal:  Semin Intervent Radiol       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 1.513

3.  [Central venous catheters as access for acute and long-term dialysis].

Authors:  M Hollenbeck; A Niehuus; G Wozniak; S Hennigs
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 0.955

4.  Tunneled central venous catheters: Experience from a single center.

Authors:  K Sampathkumar; M Ramakrishnan; A K Sah; Y Sooraj; A Mahaldhar; R Ajeshkumar
Journal:  Indian J Nephrol       Date:  2011-04

5.  Dialysis Vascular Access: Where do Tunneled Catheters Stand? - A Single-Center Experience.

Authors:  Subho Banerjee; Divyesh Engineer; Jaydeep Hirpara; Nilav Shah; Rutul Dave; Keshab Sil; Vivek Kute; Himanshu Patel; Pankaj R Shah
Journal:  Indian J Nephrol       Date:  2021-02-20

6.  Precurved non-tunnelled catheters for haemodialysis are comparable in terms of infections and malfunction as compared to tunnelled catheters: A retrospective cohort study.

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

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.