Percutaneous versus surgical insertion of PD catheters in dialysis patients: a meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Several small studies have suggested that the percutaneous method of peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheter insertion is effective and has a lower complication rate than surgical techniques (open, laparoscopic or peritoneoscopic), although no randomized, controlled study has compared these methods. Our objective was to compare percutaneous PD catheter insertion vs surgical placement in terms of 1-year catheter survival, catheter dysfunction, fluid leak and incidence of peritonitis. METHODS: We searched Medline for English-language literature from 1966 through June 2014, along with national conference proceedings and reference lists of all included publications to identify relevant studies. Inclusion criteria were having a measure of catheter survival at 1 year, catheter dysfunction, peritonitis rate per patient-month or fluid leak as outcomes. Studies were excluded if they were not in English or if they included pediatric patients. Random effects models were used to derive the pooled risk ratios, differences in patency and their variations. RESULTS: Thirteen studies with a total of 2,681 subjects met the inclusion criteria. There was no significant difference in 1-year catheter survival in percutaneous vs surgical PD catheter placement (relative risk [RR] = 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59-1.11, p = 0.19). Catheter dysfunction also did not differ significantly between the groups (pooled odds ratio [OR] = 0.86; 95% CI: 0.57-1.29, p = 0.46). The prevalence of peritoneal fluid leak also was similar for percutaneous and surgical groups (OR = 1.10; 95% CI: 0.58-2.09, p = 0.77). However, there was a significant lower incidence of peritonitis among those with percutaneous placement (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 0.77; 95% CI: 0.62-0.96, p = 0.02). Significant heterogeneity was detected across studies (I2 = 78.4%, p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that there is no significant difference in catheter survival between percutaneous and surgical placement of PD catheters. Whether there are significant benefits from percutaneous placement in terms of peritonitis rates requires further robust studies. These findings have significant implications for future design of clinical trials in the placement of PD catheters and the delivery of dialysis-related services.

Hemodialysis catheter locking solutions and the prevention of catheter dysfunction: a meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Tunneled dialysis catheters (TDCs) continue to be utilized at an alarming rate despite having a higher rate of complications when compared to fistulas and grafts. One of the primary complications of TDCs involves catheter dysfunction resulting in reduced blood flow and poor dialysis adequacy, often requiring catheter removal in addition to thrombolytic therapy. Our objective was to compare the use of locking solutions containing heparin versus all other locking solutions for primary prevention of TDC dysfunction. METHODS: We searched Medline for English language literature from 1980 through December 2013, along with national conference proceedings and reference lists of all included publications to identify relevant studies. Inclusion criteria were a measure of incidence of catheter dysfunction, catheter exchange or use of thrombolytic therapy. Studies were excluded if they were not in English or if they included pediatric patients. Random effects models were used to derive the pooled risk ratios. RESULTS: Thirteen studies with a total of 1,883 subjects met the inclusion criteria. There was no significant difference in catheter patency in those receiving heparin versus those treated with other lock solutions (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66-1.48, p = 0.96). Catheter patency did not differ between treatments in experimental studies (n = 10; IRR = 0.89; 95% CI: 0.56-1.39, p = 0.60) or observational design (n = 3; IRR = 1.64; 95% CI 0.40-6.85, p = 0.50). Significant heterogeneity was detected across studies (I2 = 84.4%, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that there is no substantial difference between heparin lock solutions versus all other types of catheter lock solutions for catheter dysfunction. Whether there are significant benefits of citrate or other novel lock solutions requires further robust studies. These findings have significant implications for future design of clinical trials in TDCs and the delivery of dialysis-related services.

Initial vascular access type in patients with a failed renal transplant.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Permanent hemodialysis vascular access is crucial for RRT in ESRD patients and patients with failed renal transplants, because central venous catheters are associated with greater risk of infection and mortality than arteriovenous fistulae or arteriovenous grafts. The objective of this study was to determine the types of vascular access used by patients initiating hemodialysis after a failed renal transplant. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Data from the US Renal Data System database on 16,728 patients with a failed renal transplant and 509,643 patients with native kidney failure who initiated dialysis between January 1, 2006, and September 30, 2011 were examined. RESULTS: At initiation of dialysis, of patients with a failed transplant, 27.7% (n=4636) used an arteriovenous fistula, 6.9% (n=1146) used an arteriovenous graft, and 65.4% (n=10,946) used a central venous catheter. Conversely, 80.8% (n=411,997) of patients with native kidney failure initiated dialysis with a central venous catheter (P<0.001). Among patients with a failed transplant, predictors of central venous catheter use included women (adjusted odds ratio, 1.75; 95% confidence interval, 1.63 to 1.87), lack of referral to a nephrologist (odds ratio, 2.00; 95% confidence interval, 1.72 to 2.33), diabetes (odds ratio, 1.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.06 to 1.22), peripheral vascular disease (odds ratio, 1.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.16 to 1.48), and being institutionalized (odds ratio, 1.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.23 to 1.89). Factors associated with lower odds of central venous catheter use included older age (odds ratio, 0.85 per 10 years; 95% confidence interval, 0.83 to 0.87), public insurance (odds ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.68 to 0.80), and current employment (odds ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.80 to 0.95). CONCLUSIONS: Central venous catheters are used in nearly two thirds of failed renal transplant patients. These patients are usually followed closely by transplant physicians before developing ESRD after a failed transplant, but the relatively low prevalence of arteriovenous fistulae/arteriovenous grafts in this group at initiation of dialysis needs to be investigated more thoroughly.