No abstract

No abstract

Buttonhole (constant site) cannulation has emerged as an attractive technique for needling arteriovenous fistulae. However, the balance of benefits and harms associated with this intervention is unclear. We conducted a systematic review of studies reporting outcomes with buttonhole cannulation. The setting and population included adult patients receiving home or center hemodialysis. We searched MEDLINE, Embase (1980-June 2012), and CINAHL (1997-June 2012), for randomized and observational studies. We also searched conference proceedings (2009-2011). The interventions included: 1) buttonhole cannulation established by sharp needles, with or without a polycarbonate peg, 2) rope-ladder cannulation. Outcomes of interest included: Facility practices, systemic infection, local infection, access survival, access interventions, access-related hospitalization, patient survival, pain, quality of life, and aneurysm formation. We identified 23 full-text articles and 4 abstracts; 3 were open-label trials, and the remainder observational studies of varying design and methodological quality. Studies were predominantly descriptive and lacked direct comparisons between buttonhole and rope-ladder cannulation. No qualitative differences in outcomes were noted among home and center hemodialysis patients using buttonhole cannulation. Rates of bacteremia were generally higher with buttonhole cannulation. Studies reporting access survival, hospitalization, quality of life, pain, and aneurysm formation had serious methodological limitations that limited our confidence in their estimates of effect. Among the various facility practices that were described, only the application of mupirocin cream was noted to be associated with reduced risk of infection. Limitations in included studies were short follow-up, crossover designs, lack of parallel control groups, and the use of patient-reported outcome measures that were not well validated. The main limitation of this review was a limited literature search. Buttonhole cannulation may be associated with an increased risk of infection. Larger, more definitive studies are needed to determine whether this technique is safe for broader use.

BackgroundCitrate has theoretical advantages over heparin for locking hemodialysis central venous catheters (CVCs), but the comparative effectiveness of these agents is not clear.Objectives1) To compare the benefits and harms of citrate versus heparin locking solutions among patients undergoing hemodialysis through CVCs; 2) to appraise methodological quality of the supporting evidence.Data sourcesCENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, ISI Web of Science, and nephrology conference abstracts.Study eligibility, participants, and interventionsWe included randomized, parallel arm clinical trials that enrolled adult patients (>18 years) receiving chronic hemodialysis through CVCs using a citrate locking solution. We excluded studies in which citrate was combined with other agents, such as antibiotics.Appraisal and synthesis methodsWe used the GRADE approach to systematic reviews and quality appraisal. Two reviewers performed data extraction independently and in duplicate. We pooled count data using generic inverse variance with random-effects models, and used fixed-effect models when only two studies were available for pooling. Subgroups included low (≤5%) vs. higher (≥30%) citrate.ResultsWe screened 600 citations. Forty-one proceeded to full-text screen; 5 met inclusion criteria. Studies included between 19 and 291 participants (Median N = 61) followed for a total of 174.6 catheter-years; 2 were multi-centred trials. Three studies assessed all-cause mortality; the pooled relative risk for death was 0.71 (95% CI = 0.42-1.24; p = 0.21; I2 = 0%). The rate ratio for bacteremic episodes was 0.54 (95% CI = 0.23-1.29; p = 0.16; I2 = 65%) while the rate ratio for bleeding was 0.48 (95% CI = 0.3-0.75; p = 0.001;I I2 = 5%). Rates of catheter exchange/replacement, all-cause hospitalization and in-situ thrombolysis were not significantly different between groups in any of the pooled analyses. Risk of bias within pooled studies was low.LimitationsOutcome definitions varied across studies. Imprecision due to small sample sizes and low event rates reduce our overall confidence in the pooled effect estimates.ImplicationsBenefits and harms of citrate vs. heparin locking solutions remain unclear; larger studies and standardization of outcome measurement and reporting are warranted.Trial registrationProtocol Registration Number: CRD42013004781Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s40697-015-0040-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract