Effective flow performances and dialysis doses delivered with permanent catheters: A 24-month comparative study of permanent catheters versus arterio-venous vascular accesses

Abstract

Background. Permanent venous catheters have emerged as a long-term vascular access option for renal replacement therapy in end-stage renal disease patients. The design and venous location of catheter devices bear intrinsic flow limitations that may negatively affect the adequacy of dialysis and the patient outcome. There is limited data comparing the long-term dialysis adequacy delivered with permanent catheters vs arterio-venous vascular accesses (AVA). Methods. To explore this problem, we conducted a prospective 24-month trial comparing the flow performances and dialysis dose (Kt/Vdp) deliveries of both access options in a group of 42 haemodialysis patients during two study phases. During the first 12 months the patients completed a treatment period by means of permanent dual silicone catheters (DualKT). Then they were transferred to an AVA (40 native arterio-venous fistulas and two PTFE grafts) and monitored for an additional 12-month period. Assessments of flow adequacy and dialysis quantification were performed monthly. Results. Dialysis adequacy was achieved in all cases. No patient had to be transferred prematurely to the AVA because of catheter failure. Three catheters had to be replaced due to bacteraemia in three patients. The mean effective blood flow rates achieved were 316 ± 3.5 ml/min and 340 ± 3.3 ml/min with DualKT and AVA, respectively, for a pre-set machine blood flow of 348 ± 2.2 ml/min. Recirculation rates evaluated with the 'slow blood flow' method were 8.6 ± 0.6 and 12.1 ± 0.8% for DualKT and AVA using mean values of the solute markers urea and creatinine. Due to the possibility of a comparison veno-venous vs arteriovenous blood circulation, a corrected arterio-venous access recirculation could be derived from the difference between the two, which was around 3%. The blood flow resistance of the DualKT was slightly higher than with AVA as indicated by venous pressure differences. Kt/Vdp delivered was 1.37 ± 0.02 and 1.45 ± 0.02 with DualKT and AVA access respectively. The loss of dialysis efficacy using catheters was estimated at 6%. However, in all cases Kt/Vdp values remained above the recommended values (Kt/Vdp ≥ 1.2). Protein nutritional state, as well as conventional clinical and biochemical markers of dialysis adequacy, remained in the optimal range. Conclusion. Permanent venous catheters provide adequate haemodialysis on a long-term basis. Flow performances and dialysis doses are slightly reduced (5-6%) when compared with AVA. Regular assessment of dialysis performance is strongly recommended to assure dialysis adequacy. Lengthening dialysis time may represent a simple and efficient tool to compensate for reduced flow performances with catheter use.