Advertisement!
Author Information Pack
Editorial Board
Submit article
Special Issue
Editor's selection process
Join as Reviewer/Editor
List of Reviewer
Indexing Information
Most popular articles
Purchase Single Articles
Archive
Free Online Access
Current Issue
Recommend this journal to your library
Advertiser
Accepted Articles
Search Articles
Email Alerts
FAQ
Contact Us
Urology, Nephrology and Andrology International

Volume  2, Issue 1, January - June 2017, Pages 21-25
 

Original Article

Tunneled Catheter for Hemodialysis: Denovo Insertion vs. Conversion of Uncuffed Catheter

Lakshminarayana G.R.*, Mohanapriya B.**, Indu S.***, Rasvi R.****

*Consultant Nephrologist **Resident Medical Officer ***Physician Assistant ****Medical Transcriptionist, Department of Nephrology, EMS Memorial Cooperative Hospital and Research Centre, Perinthalmanna, Malappuram, Kerala, India.

Choose an option to locate / access this Article:
90 days Access
Check if you have access through your login credentials.        PDF      |
|

Open Access: View PDF

DOI:

Abstract

Aims and Objectives: To compare the two techniques of tunneled catheter (TC) insertion for hemodialysis; denovo and conversion of uncuffed catheter. Methods: The patients who underwent tunneled catheter insertion from August 2014 to December 2016 at EMS memorial cooperative hospital & research center, Perinthalmanna, Kerala, were included in the study. Technical success, complications, hemodialysis records and clinical outcomes were analyzed. Results: The study group consisted of 42 patients (26 males and 16 females) with age of 58.19±11.72 years. In 28 patients uncuffed catheters (UC) were placed initially &were converted later TC, with minor oozing in 3 (10.71%) subjects. The duration on UC ranged from 3296 days (Range: 3296, Mean: 52.82, SD: 66.36) prior to their conversion to TC. In 14 patients the TC were inserted denovo, with one (7.14%) of them developing pneumothorax and another (7.14%) having minor oozing.The total number of followup days with TC was 12,946 (Range: 3872, Mean: 308.24, SD: 245.30). Ten patients had blood culture proven sepsis, yielding a catheter infection rate of 0.77/1000 catheter days, one among them required TC removal due to unresponsive septicemia (0.08/1000 catheter days). The patency rate of TC was 97.62% at 30 days after insertion, with 20(47.62%) catheters functioning at the end of the study period. Sixteen(38.09%) patients died with working catheters of causes unrelated to catheter and one (2.38%) had CRBSI along with other comorbidities at time of death. The catheters removed in 5 (11.90%) patients when they were no longer needed. There was no statistically significant effect of technique of TC insertion (denovo insertion or conversion of uncuffed catheter) on its durability (p: 0.43), postprocedure complications (p:0.34), CRBSI (p:0.30) and (patient mortality (p:0.29). Conclusions: Thus both techniques of TC insertion are safe and effective. The conversion of a UC to a TC using the same venous insertion site is safe, does not increase the risk of infection, and allows conservation of other central venous access sites.

Keywords: Hemodialysis; Uncuffed Catheter; Tunneled Catheter.

  


Corresponding Author : Lakshminarayana G.R., Consultant Nephrologist, Department of Nephrology, EMS Memorial Cooperative Hospital and Research Centre, Perinthalmanna, Malappuram, Kerala, India679322.