A systematic review and meta-analysis of the comparison of performance among step-tip, split-tip, and symmetrical-tip hemodialysis catheters

Xiao Chun Ling, Hsi Peng Lu, El Wui Loh, Yen Kuang Lin, Yi Shiuan Li, Cheng Hsin Lin, Yu Chen Ko, Mei Yi Wu, Yuh Feng Lin, Ka Wai Tam

研究成果: 雜誌貢獻回顧型文獻

摘要

Objective: Patients with end-stage renal disease need vascular access to ensure sufficient blood flow during hemodialysis (HD). Patients who are poor candidates for arteriovenous access creation require long-term catheter placement. Problems such as dialysate recirculation, thrombosis, catheter-related infections, and malfunction can occur with HD catheters. Different tip designs (step, split, and symmetrical) have been developed to ameliorate the catheter-related problems. The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy and safety of split-tip, step-tip, and symmetrical-tip HD catheters. Methods: The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases and the ClinicalTrials.gov registry were searched for studies published before November 2017. Studies comparing the clinical and rheologic outcomes of step-, split-, or symmetrical-tip catheters in patients undergoing HD were included in this meta-analysis. We conducted meta-analyses using random-effects models. The primary outcomes were catheter survival time and incidence of functioning catheters. The secondary outcomes were delivered blood flow rate, blood recirculation rate, and incidence of catheter-related complications. Results: Seven randomized controlled trials and one retrospective study with a total of 988 patients were included. No significant differences were observed in the delivered blood flow rate (weighted mean difference, −5.37 mL/min; 95% confidence interval [CI], −23.75 to 13.02), incidence of catheter-related infections (risk ratio [RR], 1.18; 95% CI, 0.63-2.22), or incidence of catheter-related thrombosis (RR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.64-2.59) between step-tip catheters and advanced (both split-tip and symmetrical-tip) catheters. Moreover, a meta-analysis of the incidence of functioning catheters at 1 month, 6 months, and 12 months revealed that the outcome of step-tip catheter use was better than that of split-tip catheter use, but with a significant difference only at 6 months (RR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.02-1.46). Conclusions: None of the catheter types exhibited unique features that can enhance their suitability for application. Hence, catheters can be selected by also considering different factors, including costs, ease of procedures, expertise of the clinician, and education and preference of the patient.
原文英語
頁(從 - 到)1282-1292
頁數11
期刊Journal of Vascular Surgery
69
發行號4
DOIs
出版狀態已發佈 - 四月 1 2019

指紋

Renal Dialysis
Meta-Analysis
Catheters
Confidence Intervals
Incidence
Catheter-Related Infections
Odds Ratio
Thrombosis
Dialysis Solutions
Patient Education
PubMed
Libraries
Chronic Kidney Failure
Blood Vessels
Registries
Randomized Controlled Trials
Retrospective Studies
Databases

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

引用此文

@article{1149d62d94f541fc89043e63981f181c,
title = "A systematic review and meta-analysis of the comparison of performance among step-tip, split-tip, and symmetrical-tip hemodialysis catheters",
abstract = "Objective: Patients with end-stage renal disease need vascular access to ensure sufficient blood flow during hemodialysis (HD). Patients who are poor candidates for arteriovenous access creation require long-term catheter placement. Problems such as dialysate recirculation, thrombosis, catheter-related infections, and malfunction can occur with HD catheters. Different tip designs (step, split, and symmetrical) have been developed to ameliorate the catheter-related problems. The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy and safety of split-tip, step-tip, and symmetrical-tip HD catheters. Methods: The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases and the ClinicalTrials.gov registry were searched for studies published before November 2017. Studies comparing the clinical and rheologic outcomes of step-, split-, or symmetrical-tip catheters in patients undergoing HD were included in this meta-analysis. We conducted meta-analyses using random-effects models. The primary outcomes were catheter survival time and incidence of functioning catheters. The secondary outcomes were delivered blood flow rate, blood recirculation rate, and incidence of catheter-related complications. Results: Seven randomized controlled trials and one retrospective study with a total of 988 patients were included. No significant differences were observed in the delivered blood flow rate (weighted mean difference, −5.37 mL/min; 95{\%} confidence interval [CI], −23.75 to 13.02), incidence of catheter-related infections (risk ratio [RR], 1.18; 95{\%} CI, 0.63-2.22), or incidence of catheter-related thrombosis (RR, 1.29; 95{\%} CI, 0.64-2.59) between step-tip catheters and advanced (both split-tip and symmetrical-tip) catheters. Moreover, a meta-analysis of the incidence of functioning catheters at 1 month, 6 months, and 12 months revealed that the outcome of step-tip catheter use was better than that of split-tip catheter use, but with a significant difference only at 6 months (RR, 1.22; 95{\%} CI, 1.02-1.46). Conclusions: None of the catheter types exhibited unique features that can enhance their suitability for application. Hence, catheters can be selected by also considering different factors, including costs, ease of procedures, expertise of the clinician, and education and preference of the patient.",
keywords = "Blood flow rate, Catheter survival rate, Hemodialysis, Meta-analysis, Recirculation rate, Split-tip, Step-tip, Symmetrical-tip, Tunneled cuff catheters",
author = "Ling, {Xiao Chun} and Lu, {Hsi Peng} and Loh, {El Wui} and Lin, {Yen Kuang} and Li, {Yi Shiuan} and Lin, {Cheng Hsin} and Ko, {Yu Chen} and Wu, {Mei Yi} and Lin, {Yuh Feng} and Tam, {Ka Wai}",
year = "2019",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jvs.2018.09.029",
language = "English",
volume = "69",
pages = "1282--1292",
journal = "Journal of Vascular Surgery",
issn = "0741-5214",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A systematic review and meta-analysis of the comparison of performance among step-tip, split-tip, and symmetrical-tip hemodialysis catheters

AU - Ling, Xiao Chun

AU - Lu, Hsi Peng

AU - Loh, El Wui

AU - Lin, Yen Kuang

AU - Li, Yi Shiuan

AU - Lin, Cheng Hsin

AU - Ko, Yu Chen

AU - Wu, Mei Yi

AU - Lin, Yuh Feng

AU - Tam, Ka Wai

PY - 2019/4/1

Y1 - 2019/4/1

N2 - Objective: Patients with end-stage renal disease need vascular access to ensure sufficient blood flow during hemodialysis (HD). Patients who are poor candidates for arteriovenous access creation require long-term catheter placement. Problems such as dialysate recirculation, thrombosis, catheter-related infections, and malfunction can occur with HD catheters. Different tip designs (step, split, and symmetrical) have been developed to ameliorate the catheter-related problems. The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy and safety of split-tip, step-tip, and symmetrical-tip HD catheters. Methods: The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases and the ClinicalTrials.gov registry were searched for studies published before November 2017. Studies comparing the clinical and rheologic outcomes of step-, split-, or symmetrical-tip catheters in patients undergoing HD were included in this meta-analysis. We conducted meta-analyses using random-effects models. The primary outcomes were catheter survival time and incidence of functioning catheters. The secondary outcomes were delivered blood flow rate, blood recirculation rate, and incidence of catheter-related complications. Results: Seven randomized controlled trials and one retrospective study with a total of 988 patients were included. No significant differences were observed in the delivered blood flow rate (weighted mean difference, −5.37 mL/min; 95% confidence interval [CI], −23.75 to 13.02), incidence of catheter-related infections (risk ratio [RR], 1.18; 95% CI, 0.63-2.22), or incidence of catheter-related thrombosis (RR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.64-2.59) between step-tip catheters and advanced (both split-tip and symmetrical-tip) catheters. Moreover, a meta-analysis of the incidence of functioning catheters at 1 month, 6 months, and 12 months revealed that the outcome of step-tip catheter use was better than that of split-tip catheter use, but with a significant difference only at 6 months (RR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.02-1.46). Conclusions: None of the catheter types exhibited unique features that can enhance their suitability for application. Hence, catheters can be selected by also considering different factors, including costs, ease of procedures, expertise of the clinician, and education and preference of the patient.

AB - Objective: Patients with end-stage renal disease need vascular access to ensure sufficient blood flow during hemodialysis (HD). Patients who are poor candidates for arteriovenous access creation require long-term catheter placement. Problems such as dialysate recirculation, thrombosis, catheter-related infections, and malfunction can occur with HD catheters. Different tip designs (step, split, and symmetrical) have been developed to ameliorate the catheter-related problems. The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy and safety of split-tip, step-tip, and symmetrical-tip HD catheters. Methods: The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases and the ClinicalTrials.gov registry were searched for studies published before November 2017. Studies comparing the clinical and rheologic outcomes of step-, split-, or symmetrical-tip catheters in patients undergoing HD were included in this meta-analysis. We conducted meta-analyses using random-effects models. The primary outcomes were catheter survival time and incidence of functioning catheters. The secondary outcomes were delivered blood flow rate, blood recirculation rate, and incidence of catheter-related complications. Results: Seven randomized controlled trials and one retrospective study with a total of 988 patients were included. No significant differences were observed in the delivered blood flow rate (weighted mean difference, −5.37 mL/min; 95% confidence interval [CI], −23.75 to 13.02), incidence of catheter-related infections (risk ratio [RR], 1.18; 95% CI, 0.63-2.22), or incidence of catheter-related thrombosis (RR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.64-2.59) between step-tip catheters and advanced (both split-tip and symmetrical-tip) catheters. Moreover, a meta-analysis of the incidence of functioning catheters at 1 month, 6 months, and 12 months revealed that the outcome of step-tip catheter use was better than that of split-tip catheter use, but with a significant difference only at 6 months (RR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.02-1.46). Conclusions: None of the catheter types exhibited unique features that can enhance their suitability for application. Hence, catheters can be selected by also considering different factors, including costs, ease of procedures, expertise of the clinician, and education and preference of the patient.

KW - Blood flow rate

KW - Catheter survival rate

KW - Hemodialysis

KW - Meta-analysis

KW - Recirculation rate

KW - Split-tip

KW - Step-tip

KW - Symmetrical-tip

KW - Tunneled cuff catheters

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85062852327&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85062852327&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jvs.2018.09.029

DO - 10.1016/j.jvs.2018.09.029

M3 - Review article

C2 - 30905366

AN - SCOPUS:85062852327

VL - 69

SP - 1282

EP - 1292

JO - Journal of Vascular Surgery

JF - Journal of Vascular Surgery

SN - 0741-5214

IS - 4

ER -