Frequent hemodialysis fistula infectious complications.

Nephron Extra Pub Date : 2014-10-14 eCollection Date: 2014-09-01 DOI:10.1159/000366477
Charmaine E Lok, Jessica M Sontrop, Rose Faratro, Christopher T Chan, Deborah Lynn Zimmerman
{"title":"Frequent hemodialysis fistula infectious complications.","authors":"Charmaine E Lok,&nbsp;Jessica M Sontrop,&nbsp;Rose Faratro,&nbsp;Christopher T Chan,&nbsp;Deborah Lynn Zimmerman","doi":"10.1159/000366477","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Few studies have examined if infectious arteriovenous access complications vary with the cannulation technique and whether this is modified by dialysis frequency. We compared the infection rate between fistulas cannulated using buttonhole versus stepladder techniques for patients treated with short daily (SDH) or nocturnal hemodialysis at home (NHD). We also compared patients receiving conventional intermittent hemodialysis (CIHD) using stepladder cannulation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data were prospectively collected from 631 patients dialyzed with a fistula from 2001 to 2010 (Toronto and Ottawa, Canada). We compared the person-time incidence rate of bacteremia and local fistula infections using the exact binomial test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Forty-six (7.3%) patients received SDH (≥5 sessions/week, 2-4 h/session), 128 (20.3%) NHD (≥4 sessions/week, ≥5 h/session) and 457 (72%) CIHD (3 sessions/week, ≤4 h/session). Fifty percent of SDH and 72% of NHD patients used the buttonhole technique. There were 39 buttonhole-related bacteremias (rate: 0.196/1,000 fistula days) and at least 2 local buttonhole site infections. Staphylococcus aureus accounted for 85% of the bacteremias. There were 5 (13%) infection-related hospitalizations and 3 (10%) serious metastatic infections, including fistula loss. In comparison, there was 1 possible fistula-related infection in CIHD during follow-up (rate: 0.002/1,000 fistula days).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The rate of buttonhole-related infections was high among patients on frequent hemodialysis and more than 50 times greater than that among patients on CIHD with the stepladder technique. Most bacteremias were due to S. aureus - with serious consequences. The risks and benefits of buttonhole cannulation require individual consideration with careful monitoring, prophylaxis and management.</p>","PeriodicalId":56356,"journal":{"name":"Nephron Extra","volume":"4 3","pages":"159-67"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1159/000366477","citationCount":"25","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nephron Extra","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000366477","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2014/9/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 25

Abstract

Background: Few studies have examined if infectious arteriovenous access complications vary with the cannulation technique and whether this is modified by dialysis frequency. We compared the infection rate between fistulas cannulated using buttonhole versus stepladder techniques for patients treated with short daily (SDH) or nocturnal hemodialysis at home (NHD). We also compared patients receiving conventional intermittent hemodialysis (CIHD) using stepladder cannulation.

Methods: Data were prospectively collected from 631 patients dialyzed with a fistula from 2001 to 2010 (Toronto and Ottawa, Canada). We compared the person-time incidence rate of bacteremia and local fistula infections using the exact binomial test.

Results: Forty-six (7.3%) patients received SDH (≥5 sessions/week, 2-4 h/session), 128 (20.3%) NHD (≥4 sessions/week, ≥5 h/session) and 457 (72%) CIHD (3 sessions/week, ≤4 h/session). Fifty percent of SDH and 72% of NHD patients used the buttonhole technique. There were 39 buttonhole-related bacteremias (rate: 0.196/1,000 fistula days) and at least 2 local buttonhole site infections. Staphylococcus aureus accounted for 85% of the bacteremias. There were 5 (13%) infection-related hospitalizations and 3 (10%) serious metastatic infections, including fistula loss. In comparison, there was 1 possible fistula-related infection in CIHD during follow-up (rate: 0.002/1,000 fistula days).

Conclusions: The rate of buttonhole-related infections was high among patients on frequent hemodialysis and more than 50 times greater than that among patients on CIHD with the stepladder technique. Most bacteremias were due to S. aureus - with serious consequences. The risks and benefits of buttonhole cannulation require individual consideration with careful monitoring, prophylaxis and management.

Abstract Image

血透瘘多发感染性并发症。
背景:很少有研究探讨感染性动静脉通路并发症是否随插管技术的不同而变化,以及是否因透析频率而改变。我们比较了短日(SDH)或夜间家庭血液透析(NHD)患者使用扣眼和阶梯技术插管的瘘管的感染率。我们也比较了接受常规间歇血液透析(CIHD)的患者使用阶梯插管。方法:前瞻性收集2001 - 2010年(加拿大多伦多和渥太华)631例透析瘘管患者的数据。我们使用精确二项检验比较了菌血症和局部瘘管感染的个人时间发生率。结果:46例(7.3%)患者接受SDH治疗(≥5次/周,2-4小时/次),128例(20.3%)患者接受NHD治疗(≥4次/周,≥5小时/次),457例(72%)患者接受CIHD治疗(3次/周,≤4小时/次)。50%的SDH患者和72%的NHD患者使用了扣眼技术。扣眼相关菌血症39例(率0.196/ 1000瘘天),至少2例局部扣眼感染。金黄色葡萄球菌占85%的菌血症。有5例(13%)感染相关住院,3例(10%)严重转移性感染,包括瘘管丢失。相比之下,随访期间CIHD患者有1例可能的瘘管相关感染(发生率:0.002/ 1000瘘管日)。结论:频繁血液透析患者的扣眼相关感染发生率较高,是采用阶梯技术的CIHD患者的50倍以上。大多数菌血症是由金黄色葡萄球菌引起的,后果严重。扣眼插管的风险和益处需要个人考虑,并进行仔细的监测、预防和管理。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: An open-access subjournal to Nephron. ''Nephron EXTRA'' publishes additional high-quality articles that cannot be published in the main journal ''Nephron'' due to space limitations.
×
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