Comparison of Dialysis Catheter Insertion and Complications Under Ultrasound Guidance with or without Fluoroscopic Assistance: A Randomized Study

Pub Date : 2024-06-04 DOI:10.25259/ijn_414_23
Sushma Konnepati, Jasmine Sethi, Anupam Lal, Raja Ramachandran, Manish Rathi
{"title":"Comparison of Dialysis Catheter Insertion and Complications Under Ultrasound Guidance with or without Fluoroscopic Assistance: A Randomized Study","authors":"Sushma Konnepati, Jasmine Sethi, Anupam Lal, Raja Ramachandran, Manish Rathi","doi":"10.25259/ijn_414_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n\nFluoroscopy is considered to be the gold standard and an essential requirement for catheter insertion. However, there is a paucity of data regarding the outcomes in ultrasound (USG)-guided insertion with and without fluoroscopy. We compared the complications of USG-guided tunneled dialysis catheter (TDC) insertion with and without fluoroscopy assistance.\n\n\nThis was a single-center randomized controlled trial (RCT) done in a tertiary hospital in North India. After screening 153 patients, 149 were enrolled: 87 were randomized into USG-guided insertion without fluoroscopy (group A) and 62 were randomized into USG-guided insertion with fluoroscopy (group B). All insertions were done in a dedicated procedure room by trained nephrologists. Outcomes were analyzed at baseline and at 1-month follow-up. Mechanical complications as well as infective and thrombotic complications were compared between both the groups.\n\n\nTDC insertion was successful (100%) in all the study participants (N = 149). One hundred twenty-nine catheters (86.5%) were inserted in the first attempt, 19 (12.5%) in the second attempt, and one catheter insertion required three attempts for insertion. The mean age of study participants was 43 years (±16.5), and males constituted 63% of the study cohort. Baseline laboratory characteristics of the two groups were comparable. The mean time of catheter insertion was 41.26 min (standard deviation [SD] 11.8) in group A and 47.74 min (SD 17.2) in group B (P = 0.007). The mean score of ease of catheter insertion, exit site bleed, infective and mechanical complications were not different between the two groups.\n\n\nOur study concluded that fluoroscopy has no additional advantage in reducing mechanical, infective, or thrombotic complications. In experienced hands, USG-guided TDC insertion without fluoroscopy assistance is as good as the insertion done with fluoroscopy assistance, with a shorter procedure time.\n","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25259/ijn_414_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Fluoroscopy is considered to be the gold standard and an essential requirement for catheter insertion. However, there is a paucity of data regarding the outcomes in ultrasound (USG)-guided insertion with and without fluoroscopy. We compared the complications of USG-guided tunneled dialysis catheter (TDC) insertion with and without fluoroscopy assistance. This was a single-center randomized controlled trial (RCT) done in a tertiary hospital in North India. After screening 153 patients, 149 were enrolled: 87 were randomized into USG-guided insertion without fluoroscopy (group A) and 62 were randomized into USG-guided insertion with fluoroscopy (group B). All insertions were done in a dedicated procedure room by trained nephrologists. Outcomes were analyzed at baseline and at 1-month follow-up. Mechanical complications as well as infective and thrombotic complications were compared between both the groups. TDC insertion was successful (100%) in all the study participants (N = 149). One hundred twenty-nine catheters (86.5%) were inserted in the first attempt, 19 (12.5%) in the second attempt, and one catheter insertion required three attempts for insertion. The mean age of study participants was 43 years (±16.5), and males constituted 63% of the study cohort. Baseline laboratory characteristics of the two groups were comparable. The mean time of catheter insertion was 41.26 min (standard deviation [SD] 11.8) in group A and 47.74 min (SD 17.2) in group B (P = 0.007). The mean score of ease of catheter insertion, exit site bleed, infective and mechanical complications were not different between the two groups. Our study concluded that fluoroscopy has no additional advantage in reducing mechanical, infective, or thrombotic complications. In experienced hands, USG-guided TDC insertion without fluoroscopy assistance is as good as the insertion done with fluoroscopy assistance, with a shorter procedure time.
分享
查看原文
有无透视辅助超声引导下的透析导管插入及并发症比较:随机研究
透视被认为是导管插入的黄金标准和基本要求。然而,有关在超声(USG)引导下插入导管和不进行透视的结果的数据却很少。我们比较了在有透视辅助和无透视辅助的情况下,在 USG 引导下插入隧道式透析导管(TDC)的并发症。这是一项在北印度一家三级医院进行的单中心随机对照试验(RCT)。在对 153 名患者进行筛选后,149 名患者被纳入试验:其中 87 人被随机分配到无需透视的 USG 引导下插入手术(A 组),62 人被随机分配到有透视的 USG 引导下插入手术(B 组)。所有插入手术均在专用手术室进行,由训练有素的肾科医生操作。对基线和 1 个月随访的结果进行了分析。对两组的机械并发症、感染并发症和血栓并发症进行了比较。所有参与研究的人员(N = 149)都成功插入了 TDC(100%)。129名参与者(86.5%)第一次就插入了导管,19名参与者(12.5%)第二次就插入了导管,一名参与者需要三次才能插入导管。研究参与者的平均年龄为 43 岁(±16.5),男性占研究群体的 63%。两组患者的基线实验室特征相当。A 组插入导管的平均时间为 41.26 分钟(标准差 [SD] 11.8),B 组为 47.74 分钟(标准差 17.2)(P = 0.007)。我们的研究得出结论,透视在减少机械、感染或血栓并发症方面没有额外优势。我们的研究结论是,透视在减少机械性、感染性或血栓性并发症方面没有额外优势。经验丰富的医生在 USG 引导下插入 TDC 时,无需透视辅助,与透视辅助下插入效果一样好,而且手术时间更短。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信