Renal Replacement Therapy (Jan 2021)

Temporary central venous catheter at hemodialysis initiation and reasons for use: a cross-sectional study

  • Izaya Nakaya,
  • Taijiro Goto,
  • Yuki Nakamura,
  • Kazuhiro Yoshikawa,
  • Junji Oyama,
  • Yoshihiko Tamayama,
  • Mizuho Morooka,
  • Sadatoshi Ito,
  • Hirotaka Ishioka,
  • Yuki Matsuura,
  • Jun Soma

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41100-021-00318-y
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 7, no. 1
pp. 1 – 9

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background Creating permanent vascular access (VA) is recommended before hemodialysis initiation in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Although many patients are still introduced to hemodialysis with temporary central venous catheters (CVCs), the reasons for their use remain unclear. We aimed to clarify the characteristics of Japanese patients introduced to hemodialysis using temporary CVCs, the reasons for their use, and whether this rate can be reduced in the future. Methods We conducted this cross-sectional study in an acute care general hospital in Japan. We enrolled 393 patients aged ≥ 18 years who received a permanent VA creation for initiating hemodialysis. We classified participants into the temporary CVC group or the permanent VA group according to the VA type at hemodialysis initiation and compared their backgrounds. We identified why permanent VA could not be used at hemodialysis initiation for patients in the temporary CVC group. Results Of the 393 patients, 137 (35%) initiated hemodialysis with a temporary CVC, and arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs) were created as the first VA in all patients during hospitalization following hemodialysis initiation. The remaining 256 patients (65%) initiated hemodialysis via AVF cannulation. The duration of predialysis nephrology care was significantly shorter in the temporary CVC group than that in the permanent VA group. The median time from AVF creation to the first successful cannulation was also shorter in the temporary CVC group (8 vs. 66 days, P < 0.001), but the estimated glomerular filtration rate values at hemodialysis initiation did not differ. Reasons for temporary CVC use were varied and complex. Problems on the part of healthcare providers, patient behavioral issues, and characteristics of causative kidney disease itself were underlying reasons. Delayed referral to a nephrologist was less frequent than expected (16%) and the most commonly reported reason (20%) was that a nephrologist was unable to predict the timing of hemodialysis initiation. Conclusions Patients with ESRD should be referred to a nephrologist earlier for AVF creation. However, given the already relatively high rate of hemodialysis initiation with permanent VA in Japan, we considered it surprisingly difficult to further reduce the temporary CVC usage rate in Japan.

Keywords