A comparison of double-cuffed with single-cuffed Tenckhoff catheters in the prevention of infection in pediatric patients.

Double-cuffed peritoneal catheters (DCCs) may be more effective at preventing penetrating infection than single-cuffed catheters (SCCs). The aim of this study was to see whether DCCs conferred any benefit in the pediatric population. Twenty consecutive SCCs inserted for chronic dialysis were compared with 20 subsequent DCCs. All catheters were inserted by a single operator (MAL). Outcome was assessed by the number of exit-site infections (ESIs) and episodes of peritonitis. There was no difference in the age or sex distribution of the groups, both having 50% of patients under 5 years. The SCCs were followed for 106 patient-months (1 still in situ) and the DCCs for 145 patient-months (11 still in situ). Peritonitis-related catheter loss was significantly more common with SCCs (9 vs 1, p < 0.01). S. aureus was a significantly more common cause of peritonitis in SCCs (10 vs 3, p < 0.03), although almost all ESIs were with this organism. The relative risk of S. aureus peritonitis with a SCC compared to a DCC was 2.077 (95% confidence interval, CI, 1.17-3.69), and the relative risk of catheter loss with peritonitis was 7.5 for SCCs (95% CI 1.14-49.6). In conclusion, double-cuffed peritoneal catheters are more effective than single-cuffed catheters in preventing penetrating infection in infants and children.