Hoon Suk Park1,2, Joonsung Choi3, Hyung Wook Kim1,2, Jun Hyun Baik3, Cheol Whee Park1, Young Ok Kim1, Chul Woo Yang1, Dong Chan Jin1,2. 1. 1 Division of Nephrology, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea. 2. 2 Department of Internal Medicine, St. Vincent's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Suwon, Korea. 3. 3 Department of Radiology, St. Vincent's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Suwon, Korea.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The exchange from a non-tunneled hemodialysis catheter to a tunneled one over a guidewire using a previous venotomy has been reported to be safe. However, some concerns that it may increase infection risk prevent its clinical application. This approach seems particularly useful for acute kidney injury patients requiring initial renal replacement therapy, in whom we frequently worry about the choice of non-tunneled versus tunneled catheters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From March 2012 to February 2016, 88 cases to receive the over-the-guidewire exchange method from a non-tunneled to a tunneled catheter and 521 cases to receive de novo tunneled catheter placement from the hemodialysis vascular access cohort were compared retrospectively. RESULTS: The immediate complication, later catheter dysfunction requiring replacement, and infection rates were comparable between the two groups. Newly placed tunneled catheter survival in the over-the-guidewire exchange group was comparable with survival in the de novo tunneled catheter group (p = 0.24). In addition, when we compared the same two methods among only intensive care unit patients; they remained similar (p = 0.19). CONCLUSION: An exchange with the over-the-guidewire method from a non-tunneled to a tunneled catheter was comparable to a de novo catheter placement technique. Therefore, this method should be viewed more favorably and should especially be considered for acute kidney injury patients.
PURPOSE: The exchange from a non-tunneled hemodialysis catheter to a tunneled one over a guidewire using a previous venotomy has been reported to be safe. However, some concerns that it may increase infection risk prevent its clinical application. This approach seems particularly useful for acute kidney injurypatients requiring initial renal replacement therapy, in whom we frequently worry about the choice of non-tunneled versus tunneled catheters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From March 2012 to February 2016, 88 cases to receive the over-the-guidewire exchange method from a non-tunneled to a tunneled catheter and 521 cases to receive de novo tunneled catheter placement from the hemodialysis vascular access cohort were compared retrospectively. RESULTS: The immediate complication, later catheter dysfunction requiring replacement, and infection rates were comparable between the two groups. Newly placed tunneled catheter survival in the over-the-guidewire exchange group was comparable with survival in the de novo tunneled catheter group (p = 0.24). In addition, when we compared the same two methods among only intensive care unit patients; they remained similar (p = 0.19). CONCLUSION: An exchange with the over-the-guidewire method from a non-tunneled to a tunneled catheter was comparable to a de novo catheter placement technique. Therefore, this method should be viewed more favorably and should especially be considered for acute kidney injurypatients.