Central Venous Catheter Malfunction

2011 ◽  
pp. 641-649
Author(s):  
Hugh A. Gelabert
2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 307-312 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mathijs van Oevelen ◽  
Alferso C Abrahams ◽  
Marcel C Weijmer ◽  
Tjerko Nagtegaal ◽  
Friedo W Dekker ◽  
...  

Background: The main limitations of central venous catheters for haemodialysis access are infections and catheter malfunction. Our objective was to assess whether precurved non-tunnelled central venous catheters are comparable to tunnelled central venous catheters in terms of infection and catheter malfunction and to assess whether precurved non-tunnelled catheters are superior to straight catheters. Materials and methods: In this retrospective, observational cohort study, adult patients in whom a central venous catheter for haemodialysis was inserted between 2012 and 2016 were included. The primary endpoint was a combined endpoint consisting of the first occurrence of either an infection or catheter malfunction. The secondary endpoint was a combined endpoint of the removal of the central venous catheter due to either an infection or a catheter malfunction. Using multivariable analysis, cause-specific hazard ratios for endpoints were calculated for tunnelled catheter versus precurved non-tunnelled catheter, tunnelled catheter versus non-tunnelled catheter, and precurved versus straight non-tunnelled catheter. Results: A total of 1603 patients were included. No difference in reaching the primary endpoint was seen between tunnelled catheters, compared to precurved non-tunnelled catheters (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.70–1.19, p = 0.48). Tunnelled catheters were removed less often, compared to precurved non-tunnelled catheters (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.46–0.93; p = 0.02). A trend for less infections and catheter malfunctions was seen in precurved jugular non-tunnelled catheters compared to straight non-tunnelled catheters (hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.24–1.50; p = 0.28) and were removed less often (hazard ratio, 0.41; 95% confidence interval, 0.18–0.93; p = 0.03). Conclusion: Tunnelled central venous catheters and precurved non-tunnelled central venous catheters showed no difference in reaching the combined endpoint of catheter-related infections and catheter malfunction. Tunnelled catheters get removed less often because of infection/malfunction than precurved non-tunnelled catheters.


2013 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 155
Author(s):  
Dong-Hyun Lee ◽  
Eun-ha Koh ◽  
Sunjoo Kim ◽  
In-Gyu Bae ◽  
Hoon-gu Kim ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document