PURPOSE: To compare the performance and safety of a fully subcutaneous vascular access device, the LifeSite hemodialysis access system, versus a tunneled hemodialysis catheter, the Tesio-Cath, at 1 year after implantation. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Sixty-eight patients who required hemodialysis received implantation of theLifeSite device or a Tesio-Cath device as a part of this multicenter study. Thirty-four patients were treated in each group. The endpoints observed included blood flow rates and associated venous pressures, overall and device-related adverse events, the need for thrombolytic infusions, device-related infections (DRIs) and associated hospitalizations, and technical device survival. RESULTS: During the 12-month observation period, significantly higher venous pressures were required in patients with the Tesio-Cath to achieve blood flow rates comparable with those achieved with the LifeSite device. Patients in the LifeSite group experienced a significantly lower rate of non-device-related adverse events (P < .001), device-related adverse events (P < .016), need for thrombolytic infusions (P < .002), and DRIs (P < .013) compared with patients in the Tesio-Cath group. There was a trend toward a lower number of hospital days per month for DRIs in the LifeSite group, with the rate for the Tesio-Cath group being twice that in the LifeSite group. The use of the LifeSite device was also associated with a significantly higher probability of device survival for 12 months after censoring for planned removals (P < .031). CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present study demonstrate superior device performance and technical device survival, reduced complications, and the need for fewer interventions with the LifeSite hemodialysis access system compared with a standard hemodialysis catheter during a 1-year time period after implantation.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To compare the performance and safety of a fully subcutaneous vascular access device, the LifeSite hemodialysis access system, versus a tunneled hemodialysis catheter, the Tesio-Cath, at 1 year after implantation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-eight patients who required hemodialysis received implantation of the LifeSite device or a Tesio-Cath device as a part of this multicenter study. Thirty-four patients were treated in each group. The endpoints observed included blood flow rates and associated venous pressures, overall and device-related adverse events, the need for thrombolytic infusions, device-related infections (DRIs) and associated hospitalizations, and technical device survival. RESULTS: During the 12-month observation period, significantly higher venous pressures were required in patients with the Tesio-Cath to achieve blood flow rates comparable with those achieved with the LifeSite device. Patients in the LifeSite group experienced a significantly lower rate of non-device-related adverse events (P < .001), device-related adverse events (P < .016), need for thrombolytic infusions (P < .002), and DRIs (P < .013) compared with patients in the Tesio-Cath group. There was a trend toward a lower number of hospital days per month for DRIs in the LifeSite group, with the rate for the Tesio-Cath group being twice that in the LifeSite group. The use of the LifeSite device was also associated with a significantly higher probability of device survival for 12 months after censoring for planned removals (P < .031). CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present study demonstrate superior device performance and technical device survival, reduced complications, and the need for fewer interventions with the LifeSite hemodialysis access system compared with a standard hemodialysis catheter during a 1-year time period after implantation.