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

Mathijs van Oevelen, Alferso C Abrahams, Marcel C Weijmer, Tjerko Nagtegaal, Friedo W Dekker, Joris I Rotmans, Sabine Ca Meijvis,

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

1 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

BACKGROUND:: The main limitations of central venous catheters for haemodialysis access are infections and catheter malfunction. Our objective was to assess whether precurved non-tunnelled central venous catheters are comparable to tunnelled central venous catheters in terms of infection and catheter malfunction and to assess whether precurved non-tunnelled catheters are superior to straight catheters.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:: In this retrospective, observational cohort study, adult patients in whom a central venous catheter for haemodialysis was inserted between 2012 and 2016 were included. The primary endpoint was a combined endpoint consisting of the first occurrence of either an infection or catheter malfunction. The secondary endpoint was a combined endpoint of the removal of the central venous catheter due to either an infection or a catheter malfunction. Using multivariable analysis, cause-specific hazard ratios for endpoints were calculated for tunnelled catheter versus precurved non-tunnelled catheter, tunnelled catheter versus non-tunnelled catheter, and precurved versus straight non-tunnelled catheter.

RESULTS:: A total of 1603 patients were included. No difference in reaching the primary endpoint was seen between tunnelled catheters, compared to precurved non-tunnelled catheters (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.70-1.19, p = 0.48). Tunnelled catheters were removed less often, compared to precurved non-tunnelled catheters (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.46-0.93; p = 0.02). A trend for less infections and catheter malfunctions was seen in precurved jugular non-tunnelled catheters compared to straight non-tunnelled catheters (hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.24-1.50; p = 0.28) and were removed less often (hazard ratio, 0.41; 95% confidence interval, 0.18-0.93; p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION:: Tunnelled central venous catheters and precurved non-tunnelled central venous catheters showed no difference in reaching the combined endpoint of catheter-related infections and catheter malfunction. Tunnelled catheters get removed less often because of infection/malfunction than precurved non-tunnelled catheters.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)307-312
Number of pages6
JournalThe Journal of Vascular Access
Volume20
Issue number3
Early online date2018
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 May 2019

Keywords

  • catheter
  • complications
  • infections
  • Haemodialysis
  • vascular access
  • Risk Assessment
  • Central Venous Catheters
  • Humans
  • Middle Aged
  • Risk Factors
  • Catheter-Related Infections/diagnosis
  • Male
  • Treatment Outcome
  • Equipment Design
  • Netherlands
  • Catheterization, Central Venous/adverse effects
  • Female
  • Aged
  • Retrospective Studies
  • Catheters, Indwelling
  • Equipment Failure
  • Renal Dialysis

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Precurved non-tunnelled catheters for haemodialysis are comparable in terms of infections and malfunction as compared to tunnelled catheters: A retrospective cohort study'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this