Advertisement

CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology

, Volume 35, Issue 6, pp 1396–1402 | Cite as

Patency of Femoral Tunneled Hemodialysis Catheters and Factors Predictive of Patency Failure

  • Kirsteen R. Burton
  • Lancia L. Q. Guo
  • Kong T. Tan
  • Martin E. Simons
  • Kenneth W. Sniderman
  • John R. Kachura
  • John R. Beecroft
  • Dheeraj K. Rajan
Clinical Investigation

Abstract

Purpose

To determine the patency rates of and factors associated with increased risk of patency failure in patients with femoral vein tunneled hemodialysis catheters.

Methods

All femoral tunneled catheter insertions from 1996 to 2006 were reviewed, during which time 123 catheters were inserted. Of these, 66 were exchanges. Patients with femoral catheter failure versus those with femoral catheter patency were compared. Confounding factors, such as demographic and procedural factors, were incorporated and assessed using univariate and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analyses.

Results

Mean catheter primary patency failure time was 96.3 days (SE 17.9 days). Primary patency at 30, 60, 90, and 180 days was 53.8%, 45.4%, 32.1%, and 27.1% respectively. Crude rates of risk of catheter failure did not suggest a benefit for patients receiving catheters introduced from one side versus the other, but more cephalad location of catheter tip was associated with improved patency. Multivariate analysis showed that patients whose catheters were on the left side (p = 0.009), were of increasing age at the time of insertion (p = 0.002) and that those who had diabetes (p = 0.001) were at significantly greater risk of catheter failure. The catheter infection rate was 1.4/1000 catheter days.

Conclusion

Patients who were of a more advanced age and had diabetes were at greater risk of femoral catheter failure, whereas those who received femoral catheters from the right side were less at risk of catheter failure.

Keywords

Hemodialysis catheter Hemodialysis Central veins Patency Infection Femoral vein 

Notes

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Lund GB, Trerotola SO, Scheel PJ Jr (1995) Percutaneous translumbar inferior vena cava cannulation for hemodialysis. Am J Kidney Dis 25(5):732–737PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Murthy R, Arbabzadeh M, Lund G, Richard H III, Levitin A, Stainken B (2002) Percutaneous transrenal hemodialysis catheter insertion. J Vasc Interv Radiol 13(10):1043–1046PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rajan DK, Croteau DL, Sturza SG, Harvill ML, Mehall CJ (1998) Translumbar placement of inferior vena caval catheters: a solution for challenging hemodialysis access. Radiographics 18(5):1155–1167 discussion 1167–1170PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Al-Hwiesh AK, Abdul-Rahaman IS (2007) Tunneled femoral vein catheterization for long term hemodialysis: a single center experience. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl 18(1):37–42PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Falk A (2007) Use of the femoral vein as insertion site for tunneled hemodialysis catheters. J Vasc Interv Radiol 18(2):217–225PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zaleski GX, Funaki B, Lorenz JM et al (1999) Experience with tunneled femoral hemodialysis catheters. AJR Am J Roentgenol 172(2):493–496PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Maya ID, Allon M (2005) Outcomes of tunneled femoral hemodialysis catheters: comparison with internal jugular vein catheters. Kidney Int 68(6):2886–2889PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Parienti JJ, Thirion M, Megarbane B et al (2008) Femoral vs jugular venous catheterization and risk of nosocomial events in adults requiring acute renal replacement therapy: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 299(20):2413–2422PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Silberzweig JE, Sacks D, Khorsandi AS, Bakal CW (2003) Reporting standards for central venous access. J Vasc Interv Radiol 14((9 Pt 2)):S443–S452PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jean G, Charra B, Chazot C et al (2002) Risk factor analysis for long-term tunneled dialysis catheter-related bacteremias. Nephron 91(3):399–405PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lin SL, Huang CH, Chen HS, Hsu WA, Yen CJ, Yen TS (1998) Effects of age and diabetes on blood flow rate and primary outcome of newly created hemodialysis arteriovenous fistulas. Am J Nephrol 18(2):96–100PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schwab SJ, Beathard G (1999) The hemodialysis catheter conundrum: hate living with them, but can’t live without them. Kidney Int 56(1):1–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chow KM, Szeto CC, Leung CB, Wong TY, Li PK (2001) Cuffed-tunneled femoral catheter for long-term hemodialysis. Int J Artif Organs 24(7):443–446PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bertoli SV, Ciurlino D, Musetti C et al (2010) Experience of 70-cm-long femoral tunnelled twin Tesio catheters for chronic haemodialysis. Nephrol Dial Transplant 25(5):1584–1588PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stolic R, Trajkovic G, Peric V et al (2008) Central venous catheters in hemodialysis: to accept recommendations or to stick to own experience. Vojnosanit Pregl 65(1):21–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC and the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE) 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kirsteen R. Burton
    • 1
  • Lancia L. Q. Guo
    • 2
  • Kong T. Tan
    • 1
  • Martin E. Simons
    • 1
  • Kenneth W. Sniderman
    • 1
  • John R. Kachura
    • 1
  • John R. Beecroft
    • 1
  • Dheeraj K. Rajan
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Medical Imaging, Division of Vascular and Interventional RadiologyUniversity Health Network, University of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada

Personalised recommendations