Efficacy and Complications of Premicath Catheter in Patients with Rejected Renal Transplant Compared to Hemodialysis Patients without Renal Transplant

Document Type : Original Article (s)

Authors

1 Assistant Professor, Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

2 Associate Professor, Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

3 Resident, Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

Abstract

Background: This study aimed to identify the efficacy and complications of premicath catheter in patients with renal failure and rejected renal transplant as well.Methods: This descriptive-analytical study included 39 patients who had again undergone premicath catheter insertion due to rejection of renal transplant and 39 patients without renal transplant. Duration of premicath catheter performance and incidence of relevant complications in these two groups were assessed and compared using patients’ records.Findings: The mean duration of catheter performance was 12.9 ± 9.5 and 13.9 ± 11.0 months in groups of with and without renal transplantation, respectively, and there was no significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.690). The mean survival time for the catheter was 25.04 ± 2.57 and 43.43 ± 3.04 months in renal transplant and hemodialysis groups, respectively; which was significantly higher in hemodialysis group, according to the log-rank test (P = 0.020).Conclusion: Survival time of the catheter is less in patients with rejected renal transplant; and due to rejection of the transplant, they should continue hemodialysis in longer time compared to hemodialysis patients who have not received any transplant. Thus, it appears that it is associated with the patient's reactions and their immune system and lack of caring inserted catheter by patient and his/her relatives. Therefore, more care is required in patients undergoing catheter insertion again after renal transplantation. More researches are needed in this field to clarify the conclusion.

Keywords

References

  1. Silva J, Teixeira e Costa, Baptista A, Ramos A, Ponce P. Catheter-related bacteremia in hemodialysis: Which preventive measures to take? Nephron Clin Pract 2008; 110(4): c251-c257.
  2. Cimochowski GE, Worley E, Rutherford WE, Sartain J, Blondin J, Harter H. Superiority of the internal jugular over the subclavian access for temporary dialysis. Nephron 1990; 54(2): 154-61.
  3. Troidle L, Finkelstein FO. Catheter-related bacteremia in hemodialysis patients: the role of the central venous catheter in prevention and therapy. Int J Artif Organs 2008; 31(9): 827-33.
  4. Mansfield PF, Hohn DC, Fornage BD, Gregurich MA, Ota DM. Complications and failures of subclavian-vein catheterization. N Engl J Med 1994; 331(26): 1735-8.
  5. Quinton W, Dillard D, Scribner BH. Cannulation of blood vessels for prolonged hemodialysis. Hemodial Int 2004; 8(1): 6-9.
  6. Stuart RK, Shikora SA, Akerman P, Lowell JA, Baxter JK, Apovian C, et al. Incidence of arrhythmia with central venous catheter insertion and exchange. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 1990; 14(2): 152-5.
  7. Sullivan R, Samuel V, Le C, Khan M, Alexandraki I, Cuhaci B, et al. Hemodialysis vascular catheter-related bacteremia. Am J Med Sci 2007; 334(6): 458-65.
  8. Develter W, De Cubber A, Van Biesen W, Vanholder R, Lameire N. Survival and complications of indwelling venous catheters for permanent use in hemodialysis patients. Artif Organs 2005; 29(5): 399-405.
  9. Rocklin MA, Dwight CA, Callen LJ, Bispham BZ, Spiegel DM. Comparison of cuffed tunneled hemodialysis catheter survival. Am J Kidney Dis 2001; 37(3): 557-63.
  10. Moss AH, Vasilakis C, Holley JL, Foulks CJ, Pillai K, McDowell DE. Use of a silicone dual-lumen catheter with a Dacron cuff as a long-term vascular access for hemodialysis patients. Am J Kidney Dis 1990; 16(3): 211-5.
  11. Dunea G, Domenico L, Gunnerson P, Winston-Willis F. A survey of permanent double lumen catheters in hemodialysis patients. ASAIO Trans 1991; 37(3): M276-M277.
  12. Moist LM, Churchill DN, House AA, Millward SF, Elliott JE, Kribs SW, et al. Regular monitoring of access flow compared with monitoring of venous pressure fails to improve graft survival. J Am Soc Nephrol 2003; 14(10): 2645-53.
  13. Schwab SJ, Harrington JT, Singh A, Roher R, Shohaib SA, Perrone RD, et al. Vascular access for hemodialysis. Kidney Int 1999; 55(5): 2078-90.
  14. Miller PE, Carlton D, Deierhoi MH, Redden DT, Allon M. Natural history of arteriovenous grafts in hemodialysis patients. Am J Kidney Dis 2000; 36(1): 68-74.
Journal of Isfahan Medical School
Volume 35, Issue 456 - Serial Number 456
September and October 2018
Pages 1648-1653

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 14 August 2017
  • Revise Date: 01 November 2024
  • Accept Date: 06 April 2022

Share

How to cite

Statistics