Impact of the inclusion of a nephrologist on the surgical team for peritoneal catheter insertion

Interventional nephrology: current status and clinical impact in Japan

Background

Current status and clinical significance of interventional nephrology has not been reported from Japan.

Methods

Questionnaires were mailed twice to the directors of all 534 Japanese certificated nephrology training institutions in 2014. The main questions were current performance, categorized annual procedure volume and managers of peritoneal dialysis (PD) access, vascular access (VA) surgery, endovascular intervention, and kidney biopsy. Frequencies of nephrologist involvement between high volume center and low volume center and association between the level of nephrologists’ involvement to each procedure and annual procedure volume were examined.

Results

332 (62.2%) institutions answered performance of all procedures and 328 (61.4%) institutions answered all procedure volume. Kidney biopsy, VA surgery, endovascular intervention and PD access surgery were performed by any doctors in 94.2, 96.3, 88.4, and 76.2% and each involvement of nephrologist was 93.9, 54.1, 53.1 and 47.6%, respectively. Cochran–Armitage analyses demonstrated significant increases in all 4 procedure volume with greater management by nephrologists (p < 0.01). Nephrologists involvement to VA surgery associated with procedure volume increase in not only VA surgery, but also PD catheter insertion (p < 0.01) and kidney biopsy (p < 0.05). And nephrologists involvement to PD catheter insertion also associated with surgical volume increase in both VA surgery (p < 0.01) and endovascular intervention (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

Main manager of all 4 procedures was nephrologist in Japan. Each procedure volume increased as nephrologists become more involved. Acquisition of one specific procedure by nephrologist associated with increase not only in this specific procedure volume, but also the other procedure volume.

Different outcomes of peritoneal catheter percutaneous placement by nephrologists using a trocar versus the Seldinger technique: the experience of two Brazilian centers

A good catheter implantation technique is important to allow effective peritoneal access function and long-term technique survival. Studies regarding results obtained by nephrologists in comparison with different techniques have been limited. The aim of this study was to investigate the rate of early catheter-related complications and catheter survival in two Brazilian centers, according to two different percutaneous methods of catheter implantation performed by nephrologist team. Adult incident patients recruited from January 2006 to July 2013 having undergone first peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheter implantation were included in the analysis. Mechanical and infectious early complication rates were defined as time to the first event occurring up to 3 months. Four hundred and forty-five consecutive Tenckhoff catheters were implanted by nephrologist team percutaneously after antibiotic prophylaxis in an operating room: trocar was used in 349 (78.4 %) and Seldinger technique (ST) in 99 (21.6 %). The ST was significantly associated with a lower rate of leak (16.3 vs 3 %, p = 0.03) and outflow failure due to tip catheter migration (22.6 vs 10.1 %, p = 0.04), while early infectious complication rates were similar between the two groups (p = 0.59). Long-term catheter survival was higher in Seldinger group (log-rank, p = 0.031). By Cox multivariate analysis, adjusted for age, sex, and diabetes, the ST remained independently associated with better catheter survival [HR 0.681 (0.462-0.910), p = 0.04]. As conclusion, our experience showed better PD outcomes with the ST than trocar method of catheter implantation by nephrologist.

Patient education and care for peritoneal dialysis catheter placement: a quality improvement study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Peritoneal dialysis catheter (PDC) complications are an important barrier to peritoneal dialysis (PD) utilization. Practice guidelines for PDC placement exist, but it is unknown if these recommendations are followed. We performed a quality improvement study to investigate this issue. ♢

METHODS

A prospective observational study involving 46 new patients at a regional US PD center was performed in collaboration with a nephrology fellowship program. Patients completed a questionnaire derived from the International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis (ISPD) catheter guidelines and were followed for early complications. ♢

RESULTS

Approximately 30% of patients reported not being evaluated for hernias, not being asked to visualize their exit site, or not receiving catheter location marking before placement. After insertion, 20% of patients reported not being given instructions for follow-up care, and 46% reported not being taught the warning signs of PDC infection. Directions to manage constipation (57%), immobilize the PDC (68%), or leave the dressing undisturbed (61%) after insertion were not consistently reported. Nearly 40% of patients reported that their PDC education was inadequate. In 41% of patients, a complication developed, with 30% of patients experiencing a catheter or exit-site problem, 11% developing infection, 13% needing PDC revision, and 11% requiring unplanned transfer to hemodialysis because of catheter-related problems. ♢

CONCLUSIONS

There were numerous deviations from the ISPD guidelines for PDC placement in the community. Patient satisfaction with education was suboptimal, and complications were frequent. Improving patient education and care coordination for PDC placement were identified as specific quality improvement needs.