Switching temporary hemodialysis catheters to long-term catheters: Exchange versus de-novo placement, any difference in line infection?

dc.contributor.authorAboul Hosn, Maen
dc.contributor.authorNasser, Zeina
dc.contributor.authorElias, Elias M.
dc.contributor.authorMedawar, Walid A.
dc.contributor.authorDaouk, Majida M.
dc.contributor.authorHoballah, Jamal Jawad
dc.contributor.authorHaddad, Fady F.
dc.contributor.departmentSurgery
dc.contributor.departmentInternal Medicine
dc.contributor.departmentDivision of Vascular Surgery
dc.contributor.departmentDivision of Neurosurgery
dc.contributor.departmentDivision of Nephrology and Hypertension
dc.contributor.facultyFaculty of Medicine (FM)
dc.contributor.institutionAmerican University of Beirut
dc.date.accessioned2025-01-24T12:12:48Z
dc.date.available2025-01-24T12:12:48Z
dc.date.issued2017
dc.description.abstractBackground: Shifting from a short-term catheter to a long-term one is done either by removing the old catheter and placing a new long-term one via fresh new puncture site, or by replacing the old catheter with a long-term one over a guidewire. Aim: We aimed to describe our technique in changing a temporary line to a long-term catheter (LTC) over a guidewire and to determine the incidence of line-related infections following this procedure. Materials and methods: A retrospective pilot study was conducted between 2005 and 2010 at the American University of Beirut Hospital. We compared the first group (A), which consisted of 20 patients who underwent exchange of a short-term dialysis catheter with a tunneled one over a guidewire using our technique, to a second group (B) of 60 patients who underwent de-novo LTC placement. The two groups were matched by age, with a followup of at least 1 month. Results: The technical success rate of the catheter-conversion procedure was 100%. Our results revealed no significant difference of catheter duration between the two groups, with median duration of 6.5 vs. 4.0 days for group A and group B, respectively (p = 0.21). Moreover, there was also no significant mean time difference between any infection and long term catheter (LTC) insertion among the two groups (p = 0.31). Furthermore, there was no difference of catheter infection between the two groups (p = 0.1). Conclusion: We concluded that there was no difference in terms of side effects or risk of infection in the guidewire group when compared to standard technique. © 2017 Dustri-Verlag Dr. K. Feistle.
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.5414/CN108943
dc.identifier.eid2-s2.0-85031772334
dc.identifier.pmid29017700
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10938/32882
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherDustri-Verlag Dr. Karl Feistle
dc.relation.ispartofClinical Nephrology
dc.sourceScopus
dc.subjectBacteremia
dc.subjectDe-novo placement
dc.subjectDialysis
dc.subjectEnd-stage kidney disease
dc.subjectGuide wire technique
dc.subjectInfection
dc.subjectLong-term catheter
dc.subjectAged
dc.subjectAged, 80 and over
dc.subjectCatheter-related infections
dc.subjectCatheterization
dc.subjectCatheters, indwelling
dc.subjectFemale
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subjectIncidence
dc.subjectMale
dc.subjectMiddle aged
dc.subjectPilot projects
dc.subjectRenal dialysis
dc.subjectRetrospective studies
dc.subjectCefalexin
dc.subjectAntibiotic prophylaxis
dc.subjectArticle
dc.subjectCatheter infection
dc.subjectClinical outcome
dc.subjectControlled study
dc.subjectFollow up
dc.subjectHemodialysis
dc.subjectHuman
dc.subjectInfectious complication
dc.subjectMajor clinical study
dc.subjectPilot study
dc.subjectRetrospective study
dc.subjectVein puncture
dc.subjectAdverse device effect
dc.subjectComparative study
dc.subjectIndwelling catheter
dc.subjectVery elderly
dc.titleSwitching temporary hemodialysis catheters to long-term catheters: Exchange versus de-novo placement, any difference in line infection?
dc.typeArticle

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
2017-4682.pdf
Size:
1.48 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format