PURPOSE: To compare the outcomes of conversion of non-tunneled to tunneled hemodialysis catheters with de novo placement of tunneled catheters and to determine the effect of time to conversion of non-tunneled to tunneled catheters on the incidence of complications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective data analyses was performed on 1,154 patients who had de novo placement of tunneled hemodialysis catheters (control group) and 254 patients who underwent conversion of non-tunneled to tunneled catheters (study group). The outcomes including technical complications, infection, and catheter dysfunction were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The technical success rate was 100 % in both the groups with no complications recorded at the time of procedure or within 24 h of insertion. The most common complication encountered in both the groups was catheter dysfunction (15.6 % in controls and 18.1 % in study). Infection rates/100 catheter days for the control and study groups were 0.17 and 0.19, respectively. Infection-free survival was not statistically different between the two groups. The time spent with non-tunneled catheter prior to conversion did not significantly alter the rates of catheter dysfunction and infection in the study group. CONCLUSION: The efficacy and safety of conversion of non-tunneled to tunneled hemodialysis catheters are similar to de novo placement with no difference in the rates of technical success, catheter dysfunction, or infection. However, the exchange of non-tunneled to tunneled catheter can help in preservation of veins for future vascular access, which is of vital importance in patients with chronic renal disease.
PURPOSE: To compare the outcomes of conversion of non-tunneled to tunneled hemodialysis catheters with de novo placement of tunneled catheters and to determine the effect of time to conversion of non-tunneled to tunneled catheters on the incidence of complications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective data analyses was performed on 1,154 patients who had de novo placement of tunneled hemodialysis catheters (control group) and 254 patients who underwent conversion of non-tunneled to tunneled catheters (study group). The outcomes including technical complications, infection, and catheter dysfunction were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The technical success rate was 100 % in both the groups with no complications recorded at the time of procedure or within 24 h of insertion. The most common complication encountered in both the groups was catheter dysfunction (15.6 % in controls and 18.1 % in study). Infection rates/100 catheter days for the control and study groups were 0.17 and 0.19, respectively. Infection-free survival was not statistically different between the two groups. The time spent with non-tunneled catheter prior to conversion did not significantly alter the rates of catheter dysfunction and infection in the study group. CONCLUSION: The efficacy and safety of conversion of non-tunneled to tunneled hemodialysis catheters are similar to de novo placement with no difference in the rates of technical success, catheter dysfunction, or infection. However, the exchange of non-tunneled to tunneled catheter can help in preservation of veins for future vascular access, which is of vital importance in patients with chronic renal disease.
Authors: Thuong G Van Ha; Derek Fimmen; Laura Han; Brian S Funaki; Scott Santeler; Jonathan Lorenz Journal: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Date: 2007 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.740
Authors: John J Engemann; Joelle Y Friedman; Shelby D Reed; Robert I Griffiths; Lynda A Szczech; Keith S Kaye; Martin E Stryjewski; L Barth Reller; Kevin A Schulman; G Ralph Corey; Vance G Fowler Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Ronald L Pisoni; Eric W Young; Dawn M Dykstra; Roger N Greenwood; Erwin Hecking; Brenda Gillespie; Robert A Wolfe; David A Goodkin; Philip J Held Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: R Duszak; Z J Haskal; C Thomas-Hawkins; M C Soulen; R A Baum; R D Shlansky-Goldberg; C Cope Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 1998 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 3.464