Search Results (5)

Catheter-related thrombosis (CRT) is a frequent and potentially serious complication associated with the widespread use of intravascular devices such as central venous catheters, including peripherally inserted central catheters and implantable port systems, pacemakers or implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. Although CRT management has been informed by guidelines extrapolated from lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT), unique challenges remain due to the distinct anatomical, pathophysiological, and clinical characteristics of upper extremity DVT. Risk factors for CRT are multifactorial, encompassing patient-related characteristics such as cancer, prior venous thromboembolism, and infection, as well as catheter-specific factors like device type, lumens, and insertion site. The diagnosis of CRT relies primarily on ultrasonography; however, computed tomography angiography and magnetic resonance imaging play a complementary role, particularly in anatomically challenging cases or when complications such as pulmonary embolism or superior vena cava syndrome are suspected. Treatment strategies for CRT include anticoagulation, catheter removal when feasible, and, in select cases, local thrombolysis or catheter-directed interventions. Anticoagulation remains the cornerstone of therapy, with direct oral anticoagulants increasingly favored due to their safety profile and efficacy. This article provides a detailed review of CRT, focusing on clinical features, diagnostic methods, and treatment strategies while addressing specific challenges in managing pacemaker and hemodialysis catheter-related thrombosis. Full article

Background: Complications, namely, catheter-related thrombosis (CRT) and venous stenosis, are associated with non-cuffed hemodialysis catheters used for emergency vascular access. However, only a few reports have demonstrated changes in the venous lumen and intravenous thrombosis after catheter removal. In this study, we comprehensively investigated the risk factors for residual thrombus 1 month after hemodialysis catheter removal. Methods: This prospective observational study was conducted from June 2021 to October 2022. We included patients with end-stage kidney disease who underwent hemodialysis catheter placement in the internal jugular vein (IJV). After catheter removal, we observed the IJV using vascular ultrasound and evaluated the thrombus and vein properties. Furthermore, we observed thrombosis 1 month after catheter removal, and investigated the risk factors for residual thrombus 1 month after catheter removal. Results: A thrombus was observed at the site of catheter removal in all the cases. Of the 37 patients who were followed up, 11 exhibited a residual thrombus 1 month after catheter removal. Patients with arteriovenous (AV) access dysfunction and enlarged lymph nodes during catheter removal were significantly more likely to have a residual thrombus 1 month after catheter removal. These associations remained significant even after adjusting for age, sex, and diabetes status. Conclusions: In 29.7% of the patients, CRT persisted even 1 month after the removal of the non-cuffed hemodialysis catheter. The provision of early intervention in patients with AV access dysfunction and enlarged lymph nodes during catheter removal may prevent CRT persistence. Full article

Background: The necessity of using central venous catheters (CVCs) in hemodialysis, coupled with their associated complications, remains a critical concern in nephrology. This study aims to compare the short-term prognosis of tunneled (T-CVC) and non-tunneled (NT-CVC) CVCs in acute hemodialysis patients, specifically focusing on infection rates, malpositioning, and lumen thrombosis within the first three weeks post-insertion. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 176 CVCs placed between January and December 2023 at the Policlinico di Modena and the Ospedale Civile di Baggiovara. Patient demographics, CHA2DS2-VASc scores, and comorbid conditions were recorded at the time of catheter placement. Outcomes assessed included catheter-related infections, malpositioning, and lumen thrombosis. Statistical analyses, including Chi-square tests, Fisher’s exact tests, and Kaplan–Meier survival analysis, were performed to evaluate differences between T-CVCs and NT-CVCs. Results: The sample comprised 43% females with a mean age of 69.3 years (SD 13.9) and a mean CHADS-VASC score of 3.72 (SD 1.4). Hypertension (90%) was the most prevalent comorbidity. Of the 176 CVCs, 127 were T-CVCs and 49 were NT-CVCs. Infection rates were 3.15% for T-CVCs and 8.16% for NT-CVCs (p = 0.07). Malpositioning occurred in 0.79% of T-CVCs and 4.08% of NT-CVCs (p = 0.47). There was one case of lumen thrombosis in the NT-CVC group. Kaplan–Meier analysis indicated a significant divergence in infection-related catheter survival favoring T-CVCs after ten days (p = 0.034). Conclusions: While non-tunneled CVCs do not significantly alter short-term prognosis compared to tunneled CVCs, the latter show a better infection-related survival rate beyond ten days. Therefore, primary insertion of T-CVCs may be preferable when resources and clinical conditions permit, although NT-CVCs remain a viable option when immediate T-CVC insertion is challenging. Full article

Background and Objectives: Thrombosis is a serious complication experienced by some hospitalized patients. While concurrent placement of two catheters (CVCs) in the same central vein offers several benefits in clinical settings, we aimed to investigate the role of this procedure in relation to the risk of thrombosis. Materials and Methods: Over a two-year retrospective analysis, we examined 114 patients with septic shock caused by a pulmonary infection, who underwent the insertion of one or more central lines into a central vein during their ICU stay. Logistic regression models were employed to assess the correlation between the Caprini risk score, the placement of two CVCs in the same vein, COVID-19 infection and the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Results: In total, 53% of the patients underwent the concurrent insertion of two CVCs. The placement of two CVCs in the same vein appears to elevate the VTE risk by 2.5 times (95% CI: 1.03–6.12). Logistic regression analysis indicated that hemodialysis catheters amplify the VTE risk by nearly five times, even when accounting for a series of factors (95% CI: 1.86–12.31). Conclusions: Our study suggests that the elevated risk of VTE is likely associated with the insertion of the hemodialysis catheters rather than solely the presence of two concurrent catheters. Full article

Reliable vascular access is necessary for effective hemodialysis. Guidelines recommend chronic hemodialysis via an arteriovenous fistula (AVF), however, in a significant number of patients, permanent central venous catheters (CVCs) are used. The use of a tunneled catheter is acceptable if the estimated dialysis time is less than a year or it is not possible to create an AVF. The main complications associated with CVC include thrombosis and catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSIs), which may result in loss of vascular access. The common practice is to use locking solutions to maintain catheter patency and minimize the risk of CRBSI. This paperwork summarizes information on currently available locking solutions for dialysis catheters along with their effectiveness in preventing thrombotic and infectious complications and describes methods of dealing with catheter dysfunction. The PubMed database was systematically searched for articles about locking solutions used in permanent CVCs in hemodialysis patients. Additional studies were identified by searching bibliographies and international guidelines. Articles on end-stage kidney disease patients dialyzed through a permanent CVC were included. Information from each primary study was extracted using pre-determined criteria including thrombotic and infectious complications of CVC use, focusing on permanent CVC if sufficient data were available. Of the currently available substances, it seems that citrate at a concentration of 4% has the best cost-effectiveness and safety profile, which is reflected in the international guidelines. Recent studies suggest the advantage of 2+1 protocols, i.e., taurolidine-based solutions with addition of urokinase once a week, although it needs to be confirmed by further research. Regardless of the type of locking solution, if prophylaxis with a thrombolytic agent is chosen, it should be started from the very beginning to reduce the risk of thrombotic complications. In case of CVC dysfunction, irrespective of the thrombolysis attempt, catheter replacement should be planned as soon as possible. Full article