Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Two Different Sizes of Temporary Hemodialysis Catheters in the Femoral Vein

Taheri, R; Najdsepas, Hossain; Khosravi, Mehdi; Khademi, Rahele

Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Two Different Sizes of Temporary Hemodialysis Catheters in the Femoral Vein

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

R Taheri ¹

Hossain Najdsepas ²

Mehdi Khosravi ³

Rahele Khademi ⁴

¹ Resident of General Surgery, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Rasoul Akram Hospital, Tehran, Iran

² Associate Professor of General Surgery, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Rasoul Akram Hospital, Tehran, Iran

³ Assistant Professor of General Surgery, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Rasoul Akram Hospital, Tehran, Iran

⁴ MSc in Research, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, School of Advanced Technologies in Medicine, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Background and Objective: Hemodialysis through temporary catheters in the femoral vein is essential for patients with End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) requiring urgent vascular access. This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of two different catheter lengths (20 cm and 24 cm) to determine the optimal clinical choice. The aim is to compare two catheters in an effort to identify one with lower malfunction rates, reduced infection incidence, and improved long-term efficacy in ESRD patients.
Materials & Methods: In this randomized controlled clinical trial, 80 ESRD patients in need of temporary hemodialysis were randomly assigned to receive either a 20 cm or 24 cm femoral catheter. Patients were monitored over two weeks for catheter performance and complications, including infection, thrombosis, and hematoma.
Results: Among 80 patients (53 men [66.25%], 27 women [33.75%]), the mean age was 52.5 ± 13.7 years in the 20 cm group and 56.0 ± 12.9 years in the 24 cm group. Demographics were statistically similar. The most common complication was thrombosis (23.75%); observed in 17.5% of the 20 cm group and 30% of the 24 cm group. Infections occurred in 20% of the 20 cm group and 12.5% of the 24 cm group. Hematomas were seen in 20% of the 20 cm group and 7.5% of the 24 cm group. Catheter functionality at two weeks was 65% in the 20 cm group and 60% in the 24 cm group (P = 0.712).
Conclusion: Both catheter lengths demonstrated similar performance and complication rates over the two-week period. Catheter selection can beindividualized based on patient-specific factors, as both sizes offer acceptable efficacy and safety profiles.

Keywords

Hemodialysis

Femoral Vein

Catheter

Randomized Controlled Trial

1. Moradpour A, Hadian M, Tavakkoli M. Economic evaluation of end stage renal disease treatments in Iran. Clinical Epidemiology and Global Health. 2020; 8(1): 199-204.

2. Kefale B, Alebachew M, Tadesse Y, Engidawork E. Quality of life and its predictors among patients with chronic kidney disease: A hospital-based cross sectional study. PloS one. 2019; 14(2): e0212184.

3. Wouk N. End-stage renal disease: medical management. American family physician.
2021; 104(5): 493-9.

4. Wang K, Wang P, Liang X, Lu X, Liu Z. Epidemiology of haemodialysis catheter complications: a survey of 865 dialysis patients from 14 haemodialysis centres in Henan province in China. BMJ open. 2015; 5(11): e007136.

5. Restrepo Valencia CA, Aguirre Arango JV, Buitrago Villa CA. Tuneled catheters in femoral vein: does the length makes any difference? Revista Colombiana de Nefrología. 2018; 5(2): 137-45.

6. Van Loon MM, Kessels AG, Van der Sande FM, Tordoir JH. Cannulation and vascular access-related complications in hemodialysis: factors determining successful cannulation. Hemodialysis International. 2009; 13(4): 498-504.

7. Rahmani AH, Hazrati B, Alidadi H. Evaluation of the Frequency of Shaldon's Catheter Complications in the Hemodialysis Patients in Ahvaz Razi Hospital. Asia Pacific Journal of Medical Toxicology. 2022; 11(2).

8. Gil RT, Kruse JA, Thill-Baharozian MC, Carlson RW. Triple-vs single-lumen central venous catheters: a prospective study in a critically ill population. Archives of Internal Medicine. 1989; 149(5): 1139-43.

9. Knuttinen M-G, Bobra S, Hardman J, Gaba RC, Bui JT, Owens CA, editors. A review of evolving dialysis catheter technologies. Seminars in interventional radiology; 2009: © Thieme Medical Publishers.

10. Parienti J-J, Mongardon N, Mégarbane B,
Mira J-P, Kalfon P, Gros A, et al. Intravascular complications of central venous catheterization by insertion site. New England Journal of Medicine. 2015; 373(13): 1220-9.

11. Alijani A, Mahin D, Shakeri I, Kharazm P. Evaluation outcomes of temporary hemodialysis catheter implantation as long as permanent access prepared in patients with chronic hemodialysis in Gorgan-Iran 2021: A cross-sectional study. Iran J Vasc Surg Endovasc Ther http://ijvset gums ac ir. 2023; 3(1).

12. Oliver MJ, Callery SM, Thorpe KE, Schwab SJ, Churchill DN. Risk of bacteremia from temporary hemodialysis catheters by site of insertion and duration of use: a prospective study. Kidney international. 2000; 58(6): 2543-5.