Comparison of different peritoneal dialysis catheters on complications and catheter survival: A network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Abstract

Background:

This network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to compare the clinical advantage of four commonly used peritoneal dialysis catheters (PDCs) including the Swan neck segment with straight tip (Swan neck + S), Tenckhoff segment with straight tip (Tenckhoff + S), Swan neck segment with coiled tip (Swan neck + C) and Tenckhoff segment with coiled tip (Tenckhoff + C).

Methods:

Randomised clinical trials were searched from PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Register of clinical trials, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and ChinaInfo from their inception until July 31, 2022. Meta-analysis was performed using Stata 14.0 and RevMan 5.3.5 software to evaluate the four commonly used PDCs.

Results:

Seventeen studies involved 1578 participants were included. NMA showed that compared with Swan neck + C, Swan neck + S significantly reduced catheter tip migration (OR 0.47 95% CI 0.22–0.99). Tenckhoff + S was more effective in reducing catheter dysfunction (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.23–0.79), catheter tip migration with dysfunction (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.05–0.78) and catheter removal (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.34–0.93) which were consistent with the pairwise meta-analysis. According to the surface under the cumulative ranking curve, Swan neck + S emerged as the best PDC in the reduction of catheter tip migration (83.3%), followed by Tenckhoff + S (79.4%). Moreover, Tenckhoff + S (86.5%, 76.3%) and Swan neck + S (72.3, 86.9%) ranked as the first and second PDC for 1 and 2-year technique survival which was significantly higher than those of the other two PDCs.

Conclusion:

Our NMA showed Swan neck + S and Tenckhoff + S tended to be more efficacious than Swan neck + C and Tenckhoff + C in lowering the mechanical dysfunction and prolonging the technique survival, which may contribute to better clinical decisions. More randomised controlled trials with larger scales and higher quality are needed in order to obtain more credible evidence.

Keywords

Coiled tip peritoneal dialysis catheter straight tip Swan neck Tenckhoff

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Chow

Van de Luijtgaarden

MWM

, et al. Changes in the worldwide epidemiology of peritoneal dialysis. Nat Rev Nephrol 2017; 13(2): 90–103.

Dell’Aquila

Chiaramonte

Rodighiero

, et al. Rational choice of peritoneal dialysis catheter. Perit Dial Int 2007; 27(Suppl 2): S119–S125.

Crabtree

Shrestha

Chow

, et al. Creating and maintaining optimal peritoneal dialysis access in the adult patient: 2019 update. Perit Dial Int 2019; 39(5): 414–436.

Hagen

Lafranca

Steyerberg

, et al. Laparoscopic versus open peritoneal dialysis catheter insertion: a meta-analysis. Plos One 2013; 8(2): e56351.

Xie

Kiryluk

Ren

, et al. Coiled versus straight peritoneal dialysis catheters: a randomized controlled trial and meta-analysis. Am J Kidney Dis 2011; 58(6): 946–955.

Esagian

Spinos

Vasilopoulou

, et al. Influence of peritoneal dialysis catheter type on complications and long-term outcomes: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. J Nephrol 2021; 34(6): 1973–1987.

Htay

Johnson

Craig

, et al. Catheter type, placement and insertion techniques for preventing catheter-related infections in chronic peritoneal dialysis patients. Cochrane Db Syst Rev 2019; 5(5): CD004680.

Caldwell

Ades

Higgins

JPT

. Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: combining direct and indirect evidence. BMJ-Brit Med J 2005; 331(7521): 897–900.

Schober

Mascha

Vetter

. Statistics from A (agreement) to Z (Z score): a guide to interpreting common measures of association, agreement, diagnostic accuracy, effect size, heterogeneity, and reliability in medical research. Anesth Analg 2021; 133(6): 1633–1641.

10.

DerSimonian

Laird

. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986; 7(3): 177–188.

11.

Lumley

. Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons. Stat Med 2002; 21(16): 2313–2324.

12.

Akyol

Porteous

Brown

. A comparison of two types of catheters for continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD). Perit Dial Int 1990; 10(1): 63–66.

13.

Banin

Ponce

Dias

, et al. Influence of the intra-peritoneal segment of the Swan neck peritoneal catheter on infectious and mechanical complications and technique survival. Clin Exp Nephrol 2019; 23(1): 135–141.

14.

Chow

Wong

SSM

JKC

, et al. Straight versus coiled peritoneal dialysis catheters: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Kidney Dis 2020; 75(1): 39–44.

15.

Danielsson

Blohme

Tranaeus

, et al. A prospective randomized study of the effect of a subcutaneously ‘buried’ peritoneal dialysis catheter technique versus standard technique on the incidence of peritonitis and exit-site infection. Perit Dial Int 2002; 22(2): 211–219.

16.

Eklund

Honkanen

Kala

, et al. Peritoneal dialysis access: prospective randomized comparison of the Swan neck and Tenckhoff catheters. Perit Dial Int 1995; 15(8): 353–356.

17.

Johnson

Wong

Wiggins

, et al. A randomized controlled trial of coiled versus straight Swan-neck Tenckhoff catheters in peritoneal dialysis patients. Am J Kidney Dis 2006; 48(5): 812–821.

18.

Cui

Gan

, et al. A randomized trial comparing conventional Swan-neck straight-tip catheters to straight-tip catheters with an artificial subcutaneous Swan neck. Perit Dial Int 2009; 29(3): 278–284.

19.

Lui

, et al. A prospective randomized study on three different peritoneal dialysis catheters. Perit Dial Int 2003; 23(Suppl 2): S127–S131.

20.

Lye

Kour

van der Straaten

, et al. A prospective randomized comparison of the Swan neck, coiled, and straight Tenckhoff catheters in patients on CAPD. Perit Dial Int 1996; 16(Suppl 1): S333–S335.

21.

Ouyang

Huang

Yang

, et al. Comparing the incidence of catheter-related complications with straight and coiled Tenckhoff catheters in peritoneal dialysis patients – a single-center prospective randomized trial. Perit Dial Int 2015; 35(4): 443–449.

22.

Rubin

Didlake

Raju

, et al. A prospective randomized evaluation of chronic peritoneal catheters. Insertion site and intraperitoneal segment. Asaio Trans 1990; 36(3): M497–M500.

23.

Scott

Bakran

Pearson

, et al. Peritoneal dialysis access. Prospective randomized trial of 3 different peritoneal catheters – preliminary report. Perit Dial Int 1994; 14(3): 289–290.

24.

Stegmayr

Wikdahl

Bergstrom

, et al. A randomized clinical trial comparing the function of straight and coiled Tenckhoff catheters for peritoneal dialysis. Perit Dial Int 2005; 25(1): 85–88.

25.

Xie

Chen

Ren

, et al. Prospective studies on applications of a two-cuff Swan neck catheter and a Tenckhoff catheter to Chinese CAPD patients. Clin Nephrol 2009; 72(5): 373–379.

26.

Yip

Lui

Tse

, et al. A prospective randomized study comparing Tenckhoff catheters inserted using the triple incision method with standard Swan neck catheters. Perit Dial Int 2010; 30(1): 56–62.

27.

Zhou

Wang

, et al. Clinical application of different types of peritoneal dialysis catheters. Chinese Journal of Blood Purification 2008; 10: 552–554.

28.

Favazza

Petri

Montanaro

, et al. Insertion of a straight peritoneal catheter in an arcuate subcutaneous tunnel by a tunneler: long-term experience. Perit Dial Int 1995; 15(8): 357–362.

29.

Rinaldi

Sera

Verrina

, et al. Chronic peritoneal dialysis catheters in children: a fifteen-year experience of the Italian Registry of Pediatric Chronic Peritoneal Dialysis. Perit Dial Int 2004; 24(5): 481–486.

30.

Nessim

Bargman

Jassal

. Relationship between double-cuff versus single-cuff peritoneal dialysis catheters and risk of peritonitis. Nephrol Dial Transpl 2010; 25(7): 2310–2314.

31.

Sanchez-Canel

Garcia-Perez

Garcia-Calvo

, et al. Prospective randomized study comparing a single-cuff self-locating catheter with a single-cuff straight Tenckhoff catheter in peritoneal dialysis. Perit Dial Int 2016; 36(1): 52–59.

32.

Stonelake

Baharani

Thomas

, et al. Outcomes of the weighted peritoneal dialysis catheter in patients at risk of percutaneous catheter failure. Perit Dial Int 2019; 39(2): 142–146.

33.

Stegmayr

Sperker

Nilsson

, et al. Few outflow problems with a self-locating catheter for peritoneal dialysis: a randomized trial. Medicine 2015; 94(48): e2083.

34.

Nielsen

Hemmingsen

Friis

, et al. Comparison of straight and curled Tenckhoff peritoneal dialysis catheters implanted by percutaneous technique: a prospective randomized study. Perit Dial Int 1995; 15(1): 18–21.

35.

Twardowski

Prowant

Nichols

, et al. Six-year experience with Swan neck catheters. Perit Dial Int 1992; 12(4): 384–389.

36.

Gadallah

Mignone

Torres

, et al. The role of peritoneal dialysis catheter configuration in preventing catheter tip migration. Adv Perit Dial 2000; 16: 47–50.

37.

Moreiras

Cuina

Goyanes

, et al. Mechanical complications in chronic peritoneal dialysis. Clin Nephrol 1999; 52(2): 124–130.

38.

Strippoli

GFM

Tong

Johnson

, et al. Catheter type, placement and insertion techniques for preventing peritonitis in peritoneal dialysis patients. Cochrane Db Syst Rev 2004; 4: CD004680.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

1.02 MB