The safety and efficacy of bedside removal of tunneled hemodialysis catheters by nephrology trainees

Differences in training and practice in tunnelled haemodialysis catheter removal: a survey of nephrology trainees across United Kingdom

BACKGROUND

The tunnelled haemodialysis catheter (TDC) removal is a necessary skill for the nephrology trainee as this task is undertaken routinely in renal units. Little published data exists to establish current practice and there is no national guidance regarding TDC removal in United Kingdom (UK). Anecdotally, trainees suggest they do not have sufficient supervised training in TDC removal. We aimed to establish the differences in training and practice in TDC removal among nephrology trainees across UK.

METHOD

We created an online survey with twenty questions for trainee and non-training nephrology registrars working in UK. The survey was distributed via regional renal training programme directors, UK Kidney Association, "Renal SpR Club" and online professional social networks including social media and instant messaging services.

RESULTS

We received 75 responses from all of 14 postgraduate training deaneries. 91% reported renal registrars remove TDCs in their units. 53% of the operators were taught by another registrar. Only 16% report awareness of written local trust guidance on TDC removal. 43% reported removing > 10 TDCs a year. Cut-down method is preferred over traction method for TDC removal. 63% remove TDCs in designated procedure areas, 52% obtain written consent and 65% wear full sterile personal protective equipment (PPE). 16% report removing TDCs alone with no assistant and 12% do not stop aspirin, antiplatelets or anticoagulants beforehand. 30% of operators reported experiencing a "stuck catheter" at some point in their careers.

CONCLUSIONS

This survey highlights that TDC removal is a common procedure and predominantly performed by renal physicians in teaching hospitals. It is mostly undertaken by registrar level doctors often without formal training or written guidelines with varying techniques. 68% of participants want this procedure to be part of mandatory training in the renal post graduate training curriculum.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Not applicable.

Efficacy and Safety of Bedside Removal of Tunnelled Hemodialysis Catheter by Noninterventional Nephrologists among Adult Patients in the King Abdulaziz University Hospital Hemodialysis Centre in Jeddah: A Retrospective Cohort Study

This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of bedside removal of tunnelled hemodialysis catheter (TDC) by noninterventional nephrologists among adult patients. It is a retrospective study that involved 53 patients from March 2020 to February 2022 at the King Abdulaziz University Hospital (KAUH) Hemodialysis Centre in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Of the 53 participants, 60.4% were male and 40.6% female, and their mean age was 50.94 ± 18.89 years. The most common comorbidities were hypertension (HTN) in 47 (88.7%), diabetes mellitus (DM) in 24 (45.3%), and DM and HTN together in 23 (43.4%) patients. The most common site of TDC removal was the right internal jugular vein (77.4%). In 84.9% of the cases, the TDC was removed as an inpatient procedure, and in the majority of the cases (64.2%), the TDC was removed by a noninterventional nephrologist. The most common reasons for TDC removal were sepsis or clinical concerns for infection (64.2%) and TDC not needed (20.8%) due to recovery of the renal function or access maturation. Most patients (96.2%) suffered no complications; only one of 34 (%) patients with catheter removal by a noninterventional nephrologist had bleeding, which required more observation and monitoring before discharge on the same day. Our study revealed that the bedside TDC removal was well tolerated with a minimal complication rate.

High sensitivity Troponin-I levels in asymptomatic hemodialysis patients

Reduction in renal clearance and removal by hemodialysis adversely affect the level and utility of high-sensitivity troponin I (hsTnI) for diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in hemodialysis (HD) patients. Furthermore, HD process itself might cause undesirable myocardial injury and enhance post HD hsTnI levels. This comparative cross-sectional study was conducted to compare the hsTnI levels between 100 asymptomatic HD patients and their 107 matched non-chronic kidney disease (CKD) population. The hsTnI levels in HD group were higher than non-CKD group [median (IQR): 54.3 (20.6-152.7) vs. 18 (6.2-66.1) ng/L, p < .001)]. The hsTnI levels reduced after HD process from 54.3 (20.6-152.7) ng/L in pre-HD to 27.1 (12.3-91.4) ng/L in post-HD (p = .015). Of interest, 25% of HD patients had increment of hsTnI after HD and might represent HD-induced myocardial injury. The significant risk factors were high hemoglobin level and high blood flow rate. In conclusion, the baseline hsTnI levels in asymptomatic HD patients were higher than non-CKD population. The dynamic change of hsTnI over time would be essential for the diagnosis of AMI. Certain numbers of asymptomatic HD patients had HD-induced silent myocardial injury and should be aggressively investigated to prevent further cardiovascular mortality.

Successful Practice Transitioning Between Hemodialysis and Hemodiafiltration in Outpatient Units: Ten Key Issues for Physicians to Remember

Hemodiafiltration (HDF) during chronic renal replacement therapy (RRT) is a relatively new practice phenomenon, emerging over the last two decades. While the technological platforms utilized during chronic RRT are in many cases similar or effectively identical to conventional hemodialysis (HD), significant differences may emerge in daily practice. Several authors of this review moved practice site between the United States and the European Union and transitioned from an HD-based practice to predominantly HDF-practicing networks. In doing so, we became keenly aware of the potential pitfalls nephrologists may be facing during such transitions. This brief review is intended to provide a succinct overview of several practical concerns and complications nephrologists may encounter in daily practice of end-stage renal disease care, including but not limited to management of electrolytes, renal anemia and treatment goals and settings during HDF.

Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome Is Not an Indicator of Bacteremia in Hemodialysis Patients With Native Accesses: A Multicenter Study

Bloodstream infection (BSI) in hemodialysis (HD) patients is often difficult to diagnose. Systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) is a sensitive predictor of BSI in the general population. We aimed to assess the usefulness of SIRS in predicting BSI in HD patients. We designed a multicenter retrospective observational study of adult (age > 18 years) HD patients who underwent two sets of blood cultures for suspected BSI at first hospital visit from August 2011 to July 2012. Clinical, biological, and microbial data were evaluated to evaluate SIRS as a predictor of BSI upon initial presentation to the hospital. Data were obtained from 279 HD patients. Vascular access other than arteriovenous fistula and subcutaneously fixed superficial artery, and those administered antimicrobial drugs before visit were excluded; thus, a total of 202 patients were finally enrolled. Mean patient age was 71 years, 67.3% were male, 49.3% had diabetes, 28.2% had indwelling hardware, and 18.3% patients had BSI. Endocarditis and vertebral osteomyelitis were common infection sites, and Staphylococcus aureus was the most common pathogen. Of those with SIRS, 25.3% had BSI and 74.7% did not (odds ratio for SIRS, 2.10; 95% confidence interval, 0.90-4.91; p = 0.11). Thus, SIRS had a low sensitivity for predicting BSI in HD patients (sensitivity, 71.9%; specificity, 45.2%; positive likelihood ratio, 1.31; negative likelihood ratio, 0.62). Systemic inflammatory response syndrome has low sensitivity in identifying BSI in HD patients. A low threshold for drawing blood cultures and initiating antibiotic treatment should be considered for HD patients.

Over-catheter tract suture to prevent bleeding and air embolism after tunnelled catheter removal

Introduction

Severe, life-threating, complications might occur on dialysis catheter removal.

Methods

We present a useful technique that may prevent vascular air embolism and severe bleeding.

Results

The suture is placed around the catheter and tied over previous tract just after device removal.

Conclusions

Applying a compressing suture to the tract left after removal of a tunnelled haemodialysis catheter is a simple manoeuvre that could prevent severe complication.

Outpatient removal of tunneled dialysis catheters by nephrology fellows in training at a Veterans Affairs Medical Center

BACKGROUND

Removal of tunneled dialysis catheters (TDC) usually occurs in dedicated procedure suites and is performed relatively rarely at the bedside. Scarce evidence exists in the literature to assess the safety and success of this procedure when performed during supervised academic training.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective chart review of all TDC removals performed on an outpatient basis by nephrology fellows under faculty supervision during a 5-year period at an academic Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Data were collected regarding patient demographics, basic laboratory studies, pertinent clinical information and procedure-related variables. We evaluated the safety, success and complication rate of this procedure.

RESULTS

We identified 72 TDC removals that met the above criteria. Mean age was 63 ± 10 years. All patients were male and hypertensive, 68% were diabetic and 69% were African-American. Overall, 88% of procedures were performed in end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients, while the rest had needed temporary dialysis for acute kidney injury. Notably, 49 patients (68%) were taking one or more of aspirin, clopidogrel or warfarin at the time of TDC removal. Overall complication rate was low (&lt;2%). There was no increase in risk of bleeding, even in subjects receiving anti-platelet therapy; only one of the 49 patients (2%) had a minor bleeding complication.

CONCLUSIONS

Outpatient TDC removal by trainees was successful and safe in the vast majority of cases (99%). We propose that TDC removal skills should be actively pursued and acquired by all nephrology fellows. This would expand the scope of practice for future general nephrologists and facilitate timely patient care.

When to initiate renal replacement therapy: The trend of dialysis initiation

The timing of renal replacement therapy for patients with end-stage renal disease has been subject to considerable variation. The United States Renal Data System shows an ascending trend of early dialysis initiation until 2010, at which point it decreased slightly for the following 2 years. In the 1990s, nephrologists believed that early initiation of dialysis could improve patient survival. Based on the Canadian-United States Peritoneal Dialysis study, the National Kidney Foundation Dialysis Outcomes Quality Initiative recommended that dialysis should be initiated early. Since 2001, several observational studies and 1 randomized controlled trial have found no beneficial effect when patients were placed on dialysis early. In contrast, they found that an increase in mortality was associated with early dialysis initiation. The most recent dialysis initiation guidelines recommend that dialysis should be initiated at an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of greater than or equal to 6 mL/min per 1.73 m(2). Nevertheless, the decision to start dialysis is mainly based on a predefined eGFR value, and no convincing evidence has demonstrated that patients would benefit from early dialysis initiation as indicated by the eGFR. Even today, the optimal dialysis initiation time remains unknown. The decision of when to start dialysis should be based on careful clinical evaluation.

Nephrologists as Educators: Clarifying Roles, Seizing Opportunities

Nephrologists play an important role in providing medical education in a variety of settings, including the medical school classroom, nephrology consult service, outpatient clinic, and dialysis unit. Therefore, nephrologists interact with a variety of learners. In this article the current state of published literature in medical education in nephrology is reviewed. Eight attending roles are identified of the nephrologist as a medical educator in the academic settings: inpatient internal medicine service, nephrology inpatient consult service, inpatient ESRD service, outpatient nephrology clinic, kidney transplantation, dialysis unit, classroom teacher, and research mentor. Defining each of these distinct settings could help to promote positive faculty development and encourage more rigorous education scholarship in nephrology.