Inserting tunnelled hemodialysis catheters using elective guidewire exchange from nontunnelled catheters: is there a greater risk of infection when compared with new-site replacement?

Hemodial Int. 2008 Jan;12(1):52-4. doi: 10.1111/j.1542-4758.2008.00240.x.

Abstract

The objective is to evaluate bacteremia outcomes and survival rates when using guidewire exchange to place tunnelled hemodialysis catheter (THDC) compared with a new-site replacement. Retrospectively, all patients were identified who received a THDC between January 1, 2000 and January 1, 2007. Any THDC having received antibiotic line locks or tunnel-to-tunnel exchange were excluded. This left 408 THDC placed in 329 patients: 46 guidewire exchange, 362 new-site replacement. Bacteremia rate from the new-site insertion group was 3.0 per 1000 catheter days, the guidewire exchange group demonstrated a rate of 2.8 per 1000 catheter days. Local infection rates did not differ between the groups at 1.2 per 1000 catheters days. The actuarial catheter survival rates using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis demonstrated no difference between the 2 groups. The placing of tunnelled cuffed hemodialysis catheters to replace temporary catheters using a guidewire exchange did not contribute to further episodes of sepsis and has the advantage of preserving venous access and minimizing invasive procedures for the patient.

MeSH terms

  • Anti-Bacterial Agents / therapeutic use
  • Bacteremia / epidemiology*
  • Bacteremia / prevention & control
  • Catheterization, Central Venous / adverse effects*
  • Catheterization, Central Venous / methods*
  • Catheters, Indwelling / adverse effects*
  • Humans
  • Infections / epidemiology*
  • Kidney Failure, Chronic / complications
  • Kidney Failure, Chronic / therapy*
  • Renal Dialysis / adverse effects
  • Renal Dialysis / methods*
  • Retrospective Studies

Substances

  • Anti-Bacterial Agents