Advertisment

Indian Journal of Nephrology About us |  Subscription |  e-Alerts  | Feedback | Login   
  Print this page Email this page   Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
 Home | Current Issue | Archives| Ahead of print | Search |Instructions |  Editorial Board  

Users Online:505

Official publication of the Indian Society of Nephrology
  Search
 
  
 ~  Similar in PUBMED
 ~  Search Pubmed for
 ~  Search in Google Scholar for
 ~Related articles
 ~  Article in PDF (750 KB)
 ~  Citation Manager
 ~  Access Statistics
 ~  Reader Comments
 ~  Email Alert *
 ~  Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
   Abstract
  Introduction
   Materials and Me...
  Results
  Discussion
  Conclusion
   References
   Article Figures
   Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed820    
    Printed54    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded85    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

 


 
  Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 32  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 307-311
 

Straight versus coiled catheters in peritoneal dialysis in a Tertiary Care Center in Malaysia


Department of Medicine, Level 3, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia

Date of Submission23-Apr-2021
Date of Acceptance09-Aug-2021
Date of Web Publication16-Jul-2022

Correspondence Address:
Christopher TS. Lim
Department of Medicine, Level 3, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Universiti Putra Malaysia - 43400, Serdang, Selangor
Malaysia
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ijn.ijn_176_21

Rights and Permissions

  Abstract 


Introduction: Despite improvements in insertion techniques and catheter designs, catheter malfunction and infection pose a great source of morbidity and limitation to adequate dialysis. The two most used peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheters are the coiled and straight PD catheters. Existing studies show conflicting results. Methods: This study aims to look at the clinical outcomes and mortality between the two catheter types. This study was designed as an ambidirectional cohort study. A total of 126 patients undergoing PD, with 75 receiving the straight PD catheter and 51 receiving the coiled PD catheter, participated in the study. The primary outcome was catheter survival, and the secondary outcomes included PD failure, catheter-related infections, and all-cause mortality. Results: In the coiled catheter group, 30 (40%) patients had catheter malfunction, whereas the straight catheter group had 15 (29.4%) patients catheter malfunction. However, the survival functions represented by the Kaplan–Meier survival curve did not show any statistical significance (P = 0.659). In the coiled PD catheter group, 13 (17.3%) had PD failure, which was comparable with the straight PD catheter group of nine (17.6%) cases (P = 1.000). The catheter-related infections are similar in both groups. The mortality between two groups was also similar (P = 0.777). Conclusions: There is no difference in outcomes between the coiled and straight PD catheters.


Keywords: Catheter malfunction, coiled catheter, mortality, peritoneal dialysis, straight catheter


How to cite this article:
Abdul Rashid AM, Bidin MZ, TS. Lim C. Straight versus coiled catheters in peritoneal dialysis in a Tertiary Care Center in Malaysia. Indian J Nephrol 2022;32:307-11

How to cite this URL:
Abdul Rashid AM, Bidin MZ, TS. Lim C. Straight versus coiled catheters in peritoneal dialysis in a Tertiary Care Center in Malaysia. Indian J Nephrol [serial online] 2022 [cited 2022 Nov 26];32:307-11. Available from: https://www.indianjnephrol.org/text.asp?2022/32/4/307/351264



  Introduction Top


In Malaysia, there has been a steady rise in new end-stage renal failure (ESRF) patients requiring dialysis every year, and the rate is increasing by more than 1.8-fold from 2009 to 2016.[1] The government remains the biggest source of funding for hemodialysis (HD) patients with total provisions spent for dialysis reaching USD 100 million, and this cost is predicted to increase by 10-fold in the year 2040.[2],[3],[4] Despite studies showing better cost-effectiveness of peritoneal dialysis (PD), this method of renal replacement therapy (RRT) is still underutilized.[5] The success of the PD program is largely dependent on PD access; however, catheter malfunction and infection continue to limit adequate RRT and remain a great cause of mortality. Two most commonly used PD catheters are the coiled and straight catheters, although international and local guidelines do not recommend the use of one over the other.[6],[7],[8]


  Materials and Methods Top


Study design

This ambidirectional cohort study was conducted in a tertiary care center in Malaysia over 124 months. We recruited patients from August 2008 until December 2010 and included all patients above the age of 18 years with a diagnosis of ESRF who opted for PD (continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis and automated peritoneal dialysis). Patients who had a PD catheter for intermittent PD while awaiting vascular access, those who were referred from another center, and those who had a concurrent illness that hinders patient compliance with our study were excluded. This study was reviewed and approved by the Medical Research and Ethics Committee of the Health Ministry of Malaysia on 12th July 2018 (NMRR-18-865-41205).

All PD catheters were inserted by a single interventional nephrologist using the peritoneoscopic method (Y-Tec© system, Medigroup with a 2.2-mm scope and VP210 STD set). The catheters utilized were doubled-cuffed coiled (57.5 cm) and straight (47 cm) PD catheters. Prior to insertion, standard catheter care with mupirocin and povidone-iodine was employed, and intravenous cefazolin was given as prophylactic antibiotics. Ambulatory PD was delayed for at least 2 weeks after insertion. If immediate dialysis was required, a lower volume (750–1,000 mL) of dialysate was used.

We utilized a standardized data collection sheet to record the patient details, comorbidities, as well as the occurrence of infection, catheter malfunction and their respective dates, mortality, and the cause of death. These data were retrieved from our computerized system by trained medical personnel.

Outcomes

The primary outcome was catheter survival, which is defined as time to primary catheter dysfunction from the time of insertion that may or may not require surgical intervention. The secondary outcomes included all-cause PD failure (defined by the necessity to change to another modality of RRT), catheter-related infections (peritonitis, exit-site infection, and tunnel tract infection), and all-cause mortality. All patients were followed up until death or until completion of the study in December 2017.

Statistical analysis

Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis, using SPSS Version 20. Numerical variables (primary outcomes) were checked for normality distribution, and appropriate measures of central dispersion were used to describe the data. Thus, catheter survival was presented as mean (standard deviation [SD]), and an independent t test was used to compare the means of two groups. The categorical variables were presented as frequencies and percentages. Chi-square test was used to examine the associations. A P value of < 0.05 was considered significant. The survival outcomes for catheter dysfunction and all-cause mortality were presented using the Kaplan–Meier survival curves.


  Results Top


Demographic data

In all, 200 patients were assessed for eligibility, and 126 patients were enrolled, of which 75 patients received the coiled PD catheter and 51 patients' straight PD catheter [Figure 1]. Baseline demographic characteristics [Table 1] between both groups were comparable regarding age, anthropometric data (weight, height, body mass index), and the primary cause of ESRF. Diabetes as primary cause of ESRF accounted for 78.7% and 92.2% in the coiled and straight PD catheter groups, respectively. Most of the patients were dialysis-naïve patients who embarked on RRT with PD, 54 (72%) in the coiled group and 42 (82.4%) in the straight group. The time required to insert both types of catheters did not differ with a mean of 33 minutes and 34 minutes in the coiled and straight catheter groups, respectively.
Figure 1: Study flow diagram

Click here to view
Table 1: Sociodemographic profile

Click here to view


Catheter survival

Catheter survival was the time to catheter malfunction regardless of reason, from the time of insertion. The mean time to malfunction is longer in the coiled PD catheter group, 3.64 ± 11.08 months as opposed to 3.29 ± 8.78 months in the straight PD catheter group (P = 0.852). However, the survival functions [Figure 2] did not show any statistical significance.
Figure 2: Kaplan–Meier survival curves for catheter survival between coiled (straight line) and straight (dotted line) PD catheter groups

Click here to view


In the coiled catheter group, 30 (40%) patients had catheter malfunction, with 10 (13.3%) patients having catheter leakages and 9 (12%) having tip migrations. Six (8%) patients had flow problems, 3 (4%) patients had omental wrappings, and 2 (2.7%) had pleura-peritoneal fistulas. In comparison, the straight catheter group had 15 (29.4%) patients suffering from catheter malfunctions with 7 (13.7%) suffering from catheter leakages and 5 (9.8%) patients having flow problems. When assessing the flow problems in both the straight and coiled catheter groups, we excluded patients whose cause of inflow and outflow were reversible, such as those with fecal-loaded abdomen and those who responded to the use of regular laxatives. Our center does not advocate the use of fibrinolytic therapy for PD patients. The number of patients having omental wrapping and tip migration was lower in the coiled PD catheter group (1 [2%] and 2 [3.9%], respectively), and there was no pleura-peritoneal fistula observed in the straight PD catheter group. However, the P value was not significant [Table 2].
Table 2: Reasons for catheter malfunction

Click here to view


PD failure

In the coiled PD catheter group, 13 (17.3%) had PD failures, which required the patients to be switched to HD or dropped out from the PD program. The number of PD failures in the straight PD catheter group was comparable, accounting for 9 (17.6%) cases (P = 1.000). The most common cause of PD failure in both groups was an infection, 7 (53.8%) in the coiled PD catheter group and 5 (55.6%) in the straight PD catheter group (P = 0.647). However, these data were not statistically significant.

Catheter-associated infections

We evaluated peritonitis rate, exit-site infection rate, and tunnel tract infection rate, which was expressed in episodes per patient-year. The catheter-related infections were similar between both groups [Table 3].
Table 3: Catheter-related infections (Episodes/patient-year)

Click here to view


Mortality

There were 22 deaths in the coiled PD catheter group (29.3%) and 14 deaths in the straight PD catheter group (27.5%). The most common cause of death in both groups was sepsis, with 10 (13.3%) in the coiled PD catheter group and 6 (11.8%) in the straight PD catheter group. Of the 6 patients with sepsis in the straight PD catheter group, 3 deaths were contributed by peritonitis. Interestingly, there was no peritonitis reported in the coiled PD catheter group. Cardiac-related issues were the second most common cause of death in both groups, accounting for 9 (12%) patients in coiled PD catheter group and 5 (9.8%) in the straight PD catheter group. The two most common cardiac causes were acute coronary syndrome (6.7% vs. 2%) and sudden cardiac deaths (4% vs. 7.8%). One patient in the coiled PD catheter group (1.3%) died of acute pulmonary edema, whereas one patient in the straight PD catheter group (2%) died of acute respiratory distress syndrome. There were two patients in both groups that suffered from intracranial bleed (2.7% vs. 3.9%). The Kaplan–Meier survival curve between coiled PD catheter and straight PD catheter groups [Figure 3] did not show any statistical significance regarding all-cause mortality and catheter type (P = 0.777).
Figure 3: Kaplan–Meier survival curves for all-cause mortality between coiled (straight line) and straight (dotted line) PD catheter groups

Click here to view



  Discussion Top


PD therapy is becoming a popular choice as the initial RRT modality, as it gives patients independence, freedom, as well as the flexibility to function in society. Despite improvements in insertion techniques and catheter designs, catheter malfunction and infection continue to be a great source of morbidity and limitation to adequate dialysis.

Two most used PD catheters are the coiled and straight PD catheters. However, existing studies show conflicting results.[9],[10],[11],[12] Although there have been many international data comparing outcomes of the different catheters with heterogeneous and variable results, Malaysia still lacks local evidence to guide best practices for peritoneal access.[6],[7],[9],[10],[11],[12],[13],[14] In keeping with the international guidelines, meta-analyses, and studies, we hypothesized that there is no difference in the outcome between the coiled and straight PD catheter groups.

The results of our study demonstrate a trend of higher catheter malfunction in the coiled PD catheter group as compared with the straight PD catheter group; however, there was no statistical significance.[10],[13],[14] The main cause of catheter malfunction was catheter leakage that is attributable to several reasons. Despite effective RRT counseling and patient education, our patients embark on RRT later in the course of their disease for many logistic reasons. Therefore, they are more prone to suffer complications of ESRF such as fluid overload, contributing to the higher catheter leakage in our patients. Another contributor is the fact that although our center advocates 10 to 14 days of wound healing prior to starting PD, some patients had to be started earlier, albeit with a lower dialysate volume.

Flow problems that include inflow and outflow issues, omental wrapping, and tip migration were also more prevalent in the coiled PD catheter group. Patients with the reversible cause of flow obstruction were excluded; that is, those who responded to laxatives. As our center does not advocate the use of fibrinolytics for blocked catheters, our findings are likely to represent the true causes of flow obstruction. This is likely because as compared with the straight PD catheter that is implanted deep into the peritoneal cavity, the coiled PD catheter has a larger surface area in contact with the peritoneum, eliciting local inflammation, and causing more problems with dialysate flow, omental wrapping, and causing tip migration.

Furthermore, we encountered two cases of pleuro-peritoneal fistulas occurring in our coiled PD catheter group, whereas there was none in the straight PD catheter group. This trend is alarming, as pleuro-peritoneal fistulas are a challenge to treat. A possible explanation to this finding is the fact that the coiled PD catheters are longer and thus, in theory, can cause diaphragm irritation and contribute to fistula formation.

In these instances, interruption of PD with conversion to HD is often necessary, while many others required surgical intervention.[15] However, our patients were switched from HD to PD due to vascular access problems, thus converting them to HD proved an impossible task. Therefore, we opted for normal volume daytime exchanges (DAPD) as an alternative regime, and the patients had complete resolution of the fistula.[16] We postulate that by resuming PD, the dialysate acts as a natural sealant for the epithelial layers and the use of the DAPD regime reduces the pressure gradient thus promoting healing of the fistula.

In assessing the secondary endpoints, which included PD failure, catheter-related infections and mortality were similar between both groups, with no statistical significance. Despite our center's experience and expertise in managing PD patients, infection remains the biggest threat to a successful PD program. Our patients come from many tiers of economic status, but the majority were from middle- to working-class patients. Therefore, poor personal hygiene and a breach in the sterile procedure were common problems in our patients.

The strength of this study lies in the long duration in which the patients were followed up to 124 months. We also acknowledge the limitations of our study. First, as this is a single-center study, we were not able to conduct a proper randomized controlled trial. Second, this study was not designed to look at cost-effectiveness. However, since our comparison of outcomes study shows similar outcomes despite the type of PD catheter, it is best to carry out an economic evaluation to look at the burden of ESRF treatment on the local health care system.


  Conclusion Top


There was no statistical significance between the coiled and the straight PD catheters regarding outcome and mortality. Our data suggest that there is a trend toward more malfunctions in the coiled PD catheter as opposed to the straight PD catheter.

Acknowledgment

We would like to thank the Head of Department of Nephrology, Serdang Hospital, for supporting our research activities.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Wong HS, Goh BL. Twenty Fourth Report of the Malaysian Dialysis and Transplant 2016, Kuala Lumpur 2018. Available from: https://www.msn.org.my/nrr/mdtr2016.jsp.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Manaf MRA, Surendra NK, Gafor AHA, Lai SH, Bavanandan S. Dialysis provision and implications of health economics on peritoneal dialysis utilization: A review from a Malaysian perspective. Int J Nephrol 2017;2017;1-7. doi: 10.1155/2017/5819629.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Lim TO, Goh A, Lim YN, Zaher MM, Suleiman AB. How public and private reforms dramatically improved access to dialysis therapy in Malaysia. Health Affairs 2010;29:2214-22.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Bujang MA, Adnan TH, Hashim NH, Mohan K, Kim Liong A, Ahmad G., Forecasting the incidence and prevalence of patients with end-stage renal disease in Malaysia up to the year 2040. Hindawi Int J Nephrol 2017;2017:1-5. doi: 10.1155/2017/2735296.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Hooi LS, Lim TO, Goh A, Wong HS, Tan CC, Ahmad G, et al. Economic evaluation of centre haemodialysis and continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis in Ministry of Health hospitals, Malaysia. Nephrology 2005;10:25-32.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Mudge D. Caring for Australasians with renal impairment (CARI). Type of peritoneal Dialysis Catheter. 2014;1-9.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
See EJ, Johnson DW, Hawley CM, Pascoe EM, Badve SV, Boudville N, et al. Risk predictors and causes of technique failure within the first year of peritoneal dialysis: An australia and New Zealand dialysis and transplant registry (ANZDATA) study. Am J Kidney Dis 2018;72:188-97. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd. 2017.10.019.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Hooi LS, Mushahar L, Ong LM, Visvanathan R, Wong HS. Clinical Practice Guidelines for Renal Replacement Therapy. 4th ed. Kuala Lumpur: Post Graduate Renal Society of Malaysia; 2017 p. 393.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Johnson DW, Wong J, Wiggins KJ, Kirwan R, Griffin A, Preston J, et al. A randomized controlled trial of coiled versus straight swan-neck tenckhoff catheters in peritoneal dialysis patients. Am J Kidney Dis 2006;48:812-21.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Stegmayr BG, Wikdahl AM, Bergström M, Nilsson C, Engman U, Arnerlöv C, et al. A randomized clinical trial comparing the function of straight and coiled Tenckhoff catheters for peritoneal dialysis. Perit Dial Int 2005;25:85-8.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Strippoli GFM, Tong A, Johnson D, Schena FP, Craig JC. Catheter-related interventions to prevent peritonitis in peritoneal dialysis: A systematic review of randomized, controlled trials. J Am Soc Nephrol 2004;15:2735-46.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Hekmat R, Mojahedi M, Ghareh S. A comparative study on using coiled versus straight swan-neck tenckhoff catheters in patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis. Iran J Med Sci 2008;33:169-72.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Lo WK, Lui SL, Li FK, Choy BY, Lam MF, Tse KC, et al. A prospective randomized study on three different peritoneal dialysis catheters. Perit Dial Int 2003;23:127-31.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Ouyang CJ, Huang FX, Yang QQ, Jiang ZP, Chen W, Qiu Y, et al. Comparing the incidence of catheter-related complications with straight and coiled tenckhoff catheters in peritoneal dialysis patients-a single-centre prospective randomized trial. Perit Dial Int 2013;35:443-9.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Chow KM, Szeto CC, Tao Li PK. Management options for hydrothorax complicating peritoneal dialysis. Semin Dial 2003;16:389-94.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Lim TSC, Thong KM. Resolution of pleura-peritoneal fistula via transient daytime ambulatory peritoneal dialysisregime (DAPD) – 8 years follow up. Pak J Med Sci 2016;32:1302-4.  Back to cited text no. 16
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3]



 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
 

    

Indian Journal of Nephrology
Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
Online since 20th Sept '07