Randomized comparison of high-flow versus conventional hemodialysis catheters

Scott O. Trerotola, Himanshu Shah, Matthew Johnson, Jan Namyslowski, Kenneth Moresco, Nilesh Patel, Michael Kraus, Christine Gassensmith, Walter T. Ambrosius

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

39 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate short-term flow rates achieved with a new split-tip polyurethane hemodialysis catheter. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, nonblinded study. Patients referred for a tunneled- dialysis catheter received either a conventional silicone (Bard Hickman 13.5 F) if randomized to the control group, or a split-tip, high-flow polyurethane (MedComp AshSplit 14.5 F) catheter if randomized to the study group. Effective flow rates (QbEff) and recirculation were measured with use of ultrasonic dilution at pump settings (Qb) of 200, 300, 350 and 400 mL/min, as well as maximum Qb (QbMax, up to 500 mL/min) sustainable for at least 3 minutes. Measurements were repeated weekly for 6 weeks. Procedure times and initial and late complications were recorded. RESULTS: Twelve patients were enrolled in each group, 11 and eight completed the study in the test and control groups, respectively. Insertion complications, limited to the split- tip group, included asymptomatic air embolus (n = 1), prolonged tunnel bleeding (n = 2), and kinking (n = 2). Recirculation in both groups was low (mean < 6% at all flow rates). QbMax was 499 mL/min in the Ash group and 470 mL/min in the Hickman group. A repeated measures analysis of variance was used. Adjusted (for week) mean effective flow rates (Qbeff, mL/min) were as follows: at Qb = 200, Ash = 211, Bard = 211, P = .93; at Qb = 300, Ash = 301, Bard = 292, P = .28; at Qb = 350, Ash = 341, Bard = 314, P = .03; at Qb = 400, Ash = 375, Bard = 329, P = .01; at QbMax, Ash = 422, Bard = 359, P = .0005. CONCLUSION: Both catheters delivered flows within the acceptable range indicated by the Dialysis Outcomes Quality Initiative. The split-tip catheter is capable of higher flow rates (Qb and QbEff) compared with the conventional catheter, which may allow more efficient dialysis. Insertion complications appear to be higher with the new design.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1032-1038
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology
Volume10
Issue number8
StatePublished - 1999

Fingerprint

Renal Dialysis
Catheters
Dialysis
Polyurethanes
Control Groups
Silicones
Embolism
Ultrasonics
Analysis of Variance
Air
Hemorrhage

Keywords

  • Catheters and catheterization, technology
  • Dialysis

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Radiological and Ultrasound Technology

Cite this

Trerotola, S. O., Shah, H., Johnson, M., Namyslowski, J., Moresco, K., Patel, N., ... Ambrosius, W. T. (1999). Randomized comparison of high-flow versus conventional hemodialysis catheters. Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, 10(8), 1032-1038.

Randomized comparison of high-flow versus conventional hemodialysis catheters. / Trerotola, Scott O.; Shah, Himanshu; Johnson, Matthew; Namyslowski, Jan; Moresco, Kenneth; Patel, Nilesh; Kraus, Michael; Gassensmith, Christine; Ambrosius, Walter T.

In: Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Vol. 10, No. 8, 1999, p. 1032-1038.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Trerotola, SO, Shah, H, Johnson, M, Namyslowski, J, Moresco, K, Patel, N, Kraus, M, Gassensmith, C & Ambrosius, WT 1999, 'Randomized comparison of high-flow versus conventional hemodialysis catheters', Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, vol. 10, no. 8, pp. 1032-1038.
Trerotola SO, Shah H, Johnson M, Namyslowski J, Moresco K, Patel N et al. Randomized comparison of high-flow versus conventional hemodialysis catheters. Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology. 1999;10(8):1032-1038.
Trerotola, Scott O. ; Shah, Himanshu ; Johnson, Matthew ; Namyslowski, Jan ; Moresco, Kenneth ; Patel, Nilesh ; Kraus, Michael ; Gassensmith, Christine ; Ambrosius, Walter T. / Randomized comparison of high-flow versus conventional hemodialysis catheters. In: Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology. 1999 ; Vol. 10, No. 8. pp. 1032-1038.
@article{78f75943858b4aee9b2421c2c817f652,
title = "Randomized comparison of high-flow versus conventional hemodialysis catheters",
abstract = "PURPOSE: To evaluate short-term flow rates achieved with a new split-tip polyurethane hemodialysis catheter. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, nonblinded study. Patients referred for a tunneled- dialysis catheter received either a conventional silicone (Bard Hickman 13.5 F) if randomized to the control group, or a split-tip, high-flow polyurethane (MedComp AshSplit 14.5 F) catheter if randomized to the study group. Effective flow rates (QbEff) and recirculation were measured with use of ultrasonic dilution at pump settings (Qb) of 200, 300, 350 and 400 mL/min, as well as maximum Qb (QbMax, up to 500 mL/min) sustainable for at least 3 minutes. Measurements were repeated weekly for 6 weeks. Procedure times and initial and late complications were recorded. RESULTS: Twelve patients were enrolled in each group, 11 and eight completed the study in the test and control groups, respectively. Insertion complications, limited to the split- tip group, included asymptomatic air embolus (n = 1), prolonged tunnel bleeding (n = 2), and kinking (n = 2). Recirculation in both groups was low (mean < 6{\%} at all flow rates). QbMax was 499 mL/min in the Ash group and 470 mL/min in the Hickman group. A repeated measures analysis of variance was used. Adjusted (for week) mean effective flow rates (Qbeff, mL/min) were as follows: at Qb = 200, Ash = 211, Bard = 211, P = .93; at Qb = 300, Ash = 301, Bard = 292, P = .28; at Qb = 350, Ash = 341, Bard = 314, P = .03; at Qb = 400, Ash = 375, Bard = 329, P = .01; at QbMax, Ash = 422, Bard = 359, P = .0005. CONCLUSION: Both catheters delivered flows within the acceptable range indicated by the Dialysis Outcomes Quality Initiative. The split-tip catheter is capable of higher flow rates (Qb and QbEff) compared with the conventional catheter, which may allow more efficient dialysis. Insertion complications appear to be higher with the new design.",
keywords = "Catheters and catheterization, technology, Dialysis",
author = "Trerotola, {Scott O.} and Himanshu Shah and Matthew Johnson and Jan Namyslowski and Kenneth Moresco and Nilesh Patel and Michael Kraus and Christine Gassensmith and Ambrosius, {Walter T.}",
year = "1999",
language = "English",
volume = "10",
pages = "1032--1038",
journal = "Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology",
issn = "1051-0443",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Randomized comparison of high-flow versus conventional hemodialysis catheters

AU - Trerotola, Scott O.

AU - Shah, Himanshu

AU - Johnson, Matthew

AU - Namyslowski, Jan

AU - Moresco, Kenneth

AU - Patel, Nilesh

AU - Kraus, Michael

AU - Gassensmith, Christine

AU - Ambrosius, Walter T.

PY - 1999

Y1 - 1999

N2 - PURPOSE: To evaluate short-term flow rates achieved with a new split-tip polyurethane hemodialysis catheter. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, nonblinded study. Patients referred for a tunneled- dialysis catheter received either a conventional silicone (Bard Hickman 13.5 F) if randomized to the control group, or a split-tip, high-flow polyurethane (MedComp AshSplit 14.5 F) catheter if randomized to the study group. Effective flow rates (QbEff) and recirculation were measured with use of ultrasonic dilution at pump settings (Qb) of 200, 300, 350 and 400 mL/min, as well as maximum Qb (QbMax, up to 500 mL/min) sustainable for at least 3 minutes. Measurements were repeated weekly for 6 weeks. Procedure times and initial and late complications were recorded. RESULTS: Twelve patients were enrolled in each group, 11 and eight completed the study in the test and control groups, respectively. Insertion complications, limited to the split- tip group, included asymptomatic air embolus (n = 1), prolonged tunnel bleeding (n = 2), and kinking (n = 2). Recirculation in both groups was low (mean < 6% at all flow rates). QbMax was 499 mL/min in the Ash group and 470 mL/min in the Hickman group. A repeated measures analysis of variance was used. Adjusted (for week) mean effective flow rates (Qbeff, mL/min) were as follows: at Qb = 200, Ash = 211, Bard = 211, P = .93; at Qb = 300, Ash = 301, Bard = 292, P = .28; at Qb = 350, Ash = 341, Bard = 314, P = .03; at Qb = 400, Ash = 375, Bard = 329, P = .01; at QbMax, Ash = 422, Bard = 359, P = .0005. CONCLUSION: Both catheters delivered flows within the acceptable range indicated by the Dialysis Outcomes Quality Initiative. The split-tip catheter is capable of higher flow rates (Qb and QbEff) compared with the conventional catheter, which may allow more efficient dialysis. Insertion complications appear to be higher with the new design.

AB - PURPOSE: To evaluate short-term flow rates achieved with a new split-tip polyurethane hemodialysis catheter. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, nonblinded study. Patients referred for a tunneled- dialysis catheter received either a conventional silicone (Bard Hickman 13.5 F) if randomized to the control group, or a split-tip, high-flow polyurethane (MedComp AshSplit 14.5 F) catheter if randomized to the study group. Effective flow rates (QbEff) and recirculation were measured with use of ultrasonic dilution at pump settings (Qb) of 200, 300, 350 and 400 mL/min, as well as maximum Qb (QbMax, up to 500 mL/min) sustainable for at least 3 minutes. Measurements were repeated weekly for 6 weeks. Procedure times and initial and late complications were recorded. RESULTS: Twelve patients were enrolled in each group, 11 and eight completed the study in the test and control groups, respectively. Insertion complications, limited to the split- tip group, included asymptomatic air embolus (n = 1), prolonged tunnel bleeding (n = 2), and kinking (n = 2). Recirculation in both groups was low (mean < 6% at all flow rates). QbMax was 499 mL/min in the Ash group and 470 mL/min in the Hickman group. A repeated measures analysis of variance was used. Adjusted (for week) mean effective flow rates (Qbeff, mL/min) were as follows: at Qb = 200, Ash = 211, Bard = 211, P = .93; at Qb = 300, Ash = 301, Bard = 292, P = .28; at Qb = 350, Ash = 341, Bard = 314, P = .03; at Qb = 400, Ash = 375, Bard = 329, P = .01; at QbMax, Ash = 422, Bard = 359, P = .0005. CONCLUSION: Both catheters delivered flows within the acceptable range indicated by the Dialysis Outcomes Quality Initiative. The split-tip catheter is capable of higher flow rates (Qb and QbEff) compared with the conventional catheter, which may allow more efficient dialysis. Insertion complications appear to be higher with the new design.

KW - Catheters and catheterization, technology

KW - Dialysis

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0032886578&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0032886578&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 10496704

AN - SCOPUS:0032886578

VL - 10

SP - 1032

EP - 1038

JO - Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology

JF - Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology

SN - 1051-0443

IS - 8

ER -