Advertisement

Clinical and Experimental Nephrology

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 135–141 | Cite as

Influence of the intra-peritoneal segment of the swan neck peritoneal catheter on infectious and mechanical complications and technique survival

  • Vanessa Burgugi BaninEmail author
  • Daniela Ponce
  • Dayana Bitencourt Dias
  • Rogério Carvalho de Oliveira
  • Luis Cuadrado Martin
  • Thyago Proença de Moraes
  • Pasqual Barretti
Original article
  • 71 Downloads

Abstract

Background

There is no consensus about the preferable type of catheter for successful peritoneal dialysis. Intra- and extra-peritoneal catheter configuration may be associated with mechanical and infectious complications affecting technique survival. The objective of this study was to compare the mechanical and infectious complications of coiled versus straight swan neck (SN) peritoneal dialysis catheters.

Methods

A prospective randomized trial was performed to compare mechanical (tip migration with dysfunction) and infectious (peritonitis and exit site infection) complications between catheters randomly divided into two groups: swan neck straight tip and swan neck coiled tip. The follow-up was 1 year.

Results

A total of 49 catheters, in 46 patients, were included from April 2015 to February 2016. The catheters groups were constituted as: 25 coiled tip SN and 24 straight tip SN. The baseline demographics were similar among the groups. Kaplan–Meier survival estimates were not different for time to first exit site infection, peritonitis and time to first catheter tip migration (log-rank test, p = 0.07, p = 0.54 and p = 0.83, respectively). Catheter survival and method survival were also similar (log-rank p = 0.88 and p = 0.91, respectively).

Conclusions

The two types of intra-peritoneal segments of SN catheters studied presented similar infectious and mechanical rates with no differences in catheter and technique survival curve. These results were consistent with the recommendations of the International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis.

Keywords

Peritoneal dialysis Catheter migration Peritonitis Swan neck 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors have declared that no conflict of interest exists.

Human rights

This study was approved by the ethics committee of Brazil Plataform, under number: 17086413.3.0000.5411.

Informed consent

The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in it at the time of enrollment. The study was conducted according to good clinical practices and the Declaration of Helsinki and its Trial Registration number is ISRCTN 15,159,688.

References

  1. 1.
    Bedat MG, Diez GR, Pecoits-Filho R, Ferreiro A, Garcia-Garcia G, Cusumano A, Fernandez-Cean J, Noboa O, Douthat W. Burden of disease: prevalence and incidence of ESRD in Latin America. Clin Nephrol. 2015;83(1):3–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pajek J. Overcoming the underutilisation of peritoneal dialysis. BioMed Res Int. 2015.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/431092 (Article ID 431092).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chaudhary K. Peritoneal Dialysis drop-out: causes and prevention strategies. Int J Nephrol. 2011;2011:434608.  https://doi.org/10.4061/2011/434608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Flanigan M, Gokal R. Peritoneal catheters and exit site practices toward optimum peritoneal access: a review of current developments. Perit Dial Int. 2005;25:132–9.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dell’Aquila R, Chiaramonte S, Rodighiero MP, Spano E, Di Loreto P, Kohn CO, et al. Racional choice of peritoneal dialysis catheter. Perit Dial Int. 2007;27:119–25.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Crabtree JH. Is the Tenckhoff catheter still the first choice for use with peritoneal dialysis? Semin Dial. 2011;24(4):447–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tenckhoff H, Schechter H. A bacteriologically safe peritoneal access device. Trans Am Soc Artif Intern Organs. 1968;XIV:181–7.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gadallah MF, Mignone J, Torres C, Ramdeen G, Pervez A. The role of peritoneal dialysis catheter configuration in preventing catheter tip migration. Adv Perit Dial. 2000;16:47–50.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Twardowski ZJ, Prowant BF, Nichols WK, Nolph KD, Khanna R. Six-year experience with swan neck catheters. Perit Dial Int. 1992;12:384–9.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hagen SM, Lafranca JA, Uzermans JNM, Dor FJMF. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the influence of peritoneal dialysis catheter type on complication rate and catheter survival. Kidney Int. 2014;85:920–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zappacosta AR, Perras ST, Closkey GM. Seldinger technique for Tenckhoff catheter placement. ASAIO Trans. 1991;37(1):13–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Li PK, Szeto CC, Piraino B, Bernardini J, Figueiredo AE, Gupta A, et al. Peritoneal dialysis-related infections recommendations: 2010 UPDATE. Perit Dial Int. 2010;30:393–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ouyang CJ, Huang FX, Yang QQ, Jiang ZP, Chen W, Qiu Y, Yu XQ. Comparing the incidence of catheter-related complications with straight and coiled Tenckhoff catheters in peritoneal dialysis patients—a single-center prospective randomized trial. Perit Dial Int. 2015;35(4):443–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Figueiredo A, Goh BL, Jenkins S, Johnson DW, Mactier R, Ramalakshmi S, Shrestha B, Struijk D, Wilkie M. Clinical practice guideline for peritoneal access. Perit Dial Int. 2010;30:424–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Johnson DW, Wong J, Wiggins KJ, Kirwan R, Griffin A, Preston J, et al. A randomized controlled trial of coiled versus straight swan-neck Tenckhoff catheters in peritoneal dialysis patients. Am J Kidney Dis. 2006;48:812–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Xie J, Kiryluk K, Ren H, Zhu P, Huang X, Shen P, Xu T, Chen X, Chen N. Coiled versus straight peritoneal dialysis catheters: a randomized controlled trial and meta-analysis. Am J Kidney Dis. 2011; 58(6): 946–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japanese Society of Nephrology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vanessa Burgugi Banin
    • 1
    Email author
  • Daniela Ponce
    • 1
    • 2
  • Dayana Bitencourt Dias
    • 1
  • Rogério Carvalho de Oliveira
    • 1
  • Luis Cuadrado Martin
    • 1
  • Thyago Proença de Moraes
    • 1
    • 3
  • Pasqual Barretti
    • 1
  1. 1.São Paulo State University, UNESPBotucatuBrazil
  2. 2.University of Sao Paulo - USPBauruBrazil
  3. 3.Pontificia Universidade Catolica do Parana - PUCCuritibaBrazil

Personalised recommendations