Comparative Outcomes of Tunneled and Non-Tunneled Catheters as Bridge to Arteriovenous Fistula Creation in Incident Hemodialysis Patients.

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Seminars in Dialysis Pub Date : 2025-05-01 Epub Date: 2025-04-16 DOI:10.1111/sdi.13256
Himansu Sekhar Mahapatra, Muthukumar B, Chandra Krishnan, Tanvi Thakker, Lalit Pursnani, Renju Binoy, Beauty Suman, Md Mahboob Alam, Abhishek Jha, Vipul Gupta, Sutanay Bhattacharyya, Rajesh Tarachandani, Preeti Chaudhary
{"title":"Comparative Outcomes of Tunneled and Non-Tunneled Catheters as Bridge to Arteriovenous Fistula Creation in Incident Hemodialysis Patients.","authors":"Himansu Sekhar Mahapatra, Muthukumar B, Chandra Krishnan, Tanvi Thakker, Lalit Pursnani, Renju Binoy, Beauty Suman, Md Mahboob Alam, Abhishek Jha, Vipul Gupta, Sutanay Bhattacharyya, Rajesh Tarachandani, Preeti Chaudhary","doi":"10.1111/sdi.13256","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study compares the outcomes of tunneled catheters (TCs) and non-tunneled catheters (NTCs) in incident hemodialysis patients undergoing early arteriovenous fistula (AVF) creation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Adult incident ESKD patients were randomized in two catheter groups (TC and NTC) for hemodialysis initiation and were followed for 12 weeks from March 2021 in a 3-year study period. Catheter salvage was attempted in both the groups until AVF maturation in cases of catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) or mechanical dysfunction. Catheter insertion and removal dates, infection episodes, and mechanical dysfunction events were recorded. CRBSI rates, dysfunction rates, and catheter survival were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 133 patients were randomized into TC (65) and NTC (68) groups. Seventy-six patients developed symptoms of CRBSI, of whom eight patients required catheter removal (TC: 2, NTC: 6). CRBSI episodes per 1000 catheter days were 15.14 for TCs and 16.85 for NTCs, but mechanical dysfunction rates were 0.96 and 1.68, respectively. By 6 weeks, one catheter was removed in the TC group (AVF maturation), and eight in the NTC group were removed (four due to AVF maturation, three due to CRBSI, and one due to mechanical dysfunction). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed significantly longer catheter survival for TCs compared to NTCs (66.9 vs. 57.9 days, p = 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>CRBSI rates and catheter patency were comparable between TCs and NTCs at 6 weeks, but TCs demonstrated better survival beyond this period. When early AVF creation is ensured, NTCs may serve as a viable short-term vascular access option, particularly in resource-limited settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":21675,"journal":{"name":"Seminars in Dialysis","volume":"38 3","pages":"187-193"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Seminars in Dialysis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/sdi.13256","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: This study compares the outcomes of tunneled catheters (TCs) and non-tunneled catheters (NTCs) in incident hemodialysis patients undergoing early arteriovenous fistula (AVF) creation.

Methods: Adult incident ESKD patients were randomized in two catheter groups (TC and NTC) for hemodialysis initiation and were followed for 12 weeks from March 2021 in a 3-year study period. Catheter salvage was attempted in both the groups until AVF maturation in cases of catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) or mechanical dysfunction. Catheter insertion and removal dates, infection episodes, and mechanical dysfunction events were recorded. CRBSI rates, dysfunction rates, and catheter survival were compared.

Results: A total of 133 patients were randomized into TC (65) and NTC (68) groups. Seventy-six patients developed symptoms of CRBSI, of whom eight patients required catheter removal (TC: 2, NTC: 6). CRBSI episodes per 1000 catheter days were 15.14 for TCs and 16.85 for NTCs, but mechanical dysfunction rates were 0.96 and 1.68, respectively. By 6 weeks, one catheter was removed in the TC group (AVF maturation), and eight in the NTC group were removed (four due to AVF maturation, three due to CRBSI, and one due to mechanical dysfunction). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed significantly longer catheter survival for TCs compared to NTCs (66.9 vs. 57.9 days, p = 0.001).

Conclusion: CRBSI rates and catheter patency were comparable between TCs and NTCs at 6 weeks, but TCs demonstrated better survival beyond this period. When early AVF creation is ensured, NTCs may serve as a viable short-term vascular access option, particularly in resource-limited settings.

隧道导管与非隧道导管作为意外血透患者动静脉造瘘桥的比较结果。
背景:本研究比较了隧道导管(TCs)和非隧道导管(ntc)在发生早期动静脉瘘(AVF)的血透患者中的疗效。方法:成人ESKD患者随机分为两组(TC组和NTC组)进行血液透析起始,从2021年3月开始随访12周,为期3年。在导管相关血流感染(CRBSI)或机械功能障碍的情况下,两组均尝试保留导管直至AVF成熟。记录导管插入和拔出日期、感染发作和机械功能障碍事件。比较CRBSI率、功能障碍率和导管存活率。结果:133例患者随机分为TC组(65例)和NTC组(68例)。76例患者出现CRBSI症状,其中8例患者需要拔除导管(TC: 2, NTC: 6)。tc和ntc患者每1000天CRBSI发作次数分别为15.14次和16.85次,但机械功能障碍率分别为0.96和1.68次。6周时,TC组(AVF成熟)拔管1根,NTC组拔管8根(AVF成熟4根,CRBSI 3根,机械功能障碍1根)。Kaplan-Meier分析显示,tc患者的导管生存期明显长于ntc患者(66.9天对57.9天,p = 0.001)。结论:TCs和ntc在6周时的CRBSI率和导管通畅程度相当,但TCs在6周后表现出更好的生存率。当确保早期AVF形成时,ntc可以作为可行的短期血管通路选择,特别是在资源有限的情况下。
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
来源期刊
Seminars in Dialysis
Seminars in Dialysis 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
6.20%
发文量
91
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Seminars in Dialysis is a bimonthly publication focusing exclusively on cutting-edge clinical aspects of dialysis therapy. Besides publishing papers by the most respected names in the field of dialysis, the Journal has unique useful features, all designed to keep you current: -Fellows Forum -Dialysis rounds -Editorials -Opinions -Briefly noted -Summary and Comment -Guest Edited Issues -Special Articles Virtually everything you read in Seminars in Dialysis is written or solicited by the editors after choosing the most effective of nine different editorial styles and formats. They know that facts, speculations, ''how-to-do-it'' information, opinions, and news reports all play important roles in your education and the patient care you provide. Alternate issues of the journal are guest edited and focus on a single clinical topic in dialysis.
×
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