Survey of non-tunneled temporary hemodialysis catheter clinical practice and training

Background:Nephrologists are placing fewer non-tunneled temporary hemodialysis catheters. Requiring competence for nephrology fellow graduation is controversial.Methods:Anonymous, online survey of all graduates from a single, military nephrology training program (n = 81; 1985–2017) and all US Nephrology program directors (n = 150).Results:Graduate response and completion rates were 59% and 100%, respectively; 93% agreed they had been adequately trained; 58% (26/45) place non-tunneled temporary hemodialysis catheters, independent of academic practice or time in practice, but 12/26 did ⩽5/year and 23/26 referred some or all. The most common reason for continuing non-tunneled temporary hemodialysis catheter placement was that it is an essential emergency procedure (92%). The single most significant barrier was time to do the procedure (49%). Program director response and completion rates were 50% and 79%, respectively. The single most important barrier to fellow competence was busyness of the service (36%), followed by disinterest (21%); 55% believed that non-tunneled temporary hemodialysis catheter insertion competence should be required, with 81% indicating it was an essential emergency procedure. The majority of graduates and program directors agreed that simulation training was valuable; 76% of programs employ simulation. Graduates who had simulation training and program directors with ⩽20 years of practice were significantly more likely to agree that simulation training was necessary.Conclusion:Of the graduate respondents from a single training program, 58% continue to place non-tunneled temporary hemodialysis catheters; 55% of program directors believe non-tunneled temporary hemodialysis catheter procedural competence should be required. Graduates who had non-tunneled temporary hemodialysis catheter simulation training and younger program directors consider simulation training necessary. These findings should be considered in the discussion of non-tunneled temporary hemodialysis catheter curriculum requirements.

Traditional versus Early-access Grafts for Hemodialysis Access: A Single-institution Comparative Study

In those patients requiring urgent hemodialysis, the use of early-access grafts may reduce the need for temporary hemodialysis catheters and their resultant complications such as infection and central venous stenosis. We review a consecutive group of patients undergoing placement of a traditional polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) graft as compared with a cohort of patients who underwent insertion of a trilaminate PTFE vascular graft (TPVG). During the period from January 2008 to December 2009, 65 sequential patients received a traditional PTFE graft with 78 subsequent patients having a TPVG inserted. Factors examined included use of temporary hemodialysis catheters during the period of graft maturation, incidence of infection, and primary and secondary graft patency. For all patients, incidence was reported as observed during the first year after graft insertion. With the use of the TPVG, need for temporary hemodialysis catheters was reduced from 91 to 32 per cent, and 1-year overall graft patency was improved from 36 to 77 per cent ( P < 0.01). We report that the use of a trilaminate PTFE graft allowed early access, reduced the need for temporary hemodialysis catheters, decreased overall graft complication rates, and significantly improved 1-year patency.