Deparment of Nephrology, The First Hospital of Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.
Department of Nuclear Medicine, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing, China.
J Vasc Access. 2024 Mar;25(2):448-460. doi: 10.1177/11297298221115003. Epub 2022 Aug 2.
The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare effectiveness and safety among different tip-design long-term hemodialysis (HD) catheters.
PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched until 8 December 2021 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies comparing step-tip, split-tip, or symmetrical-tip design catheters in patients undergoing HD will be included. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to evaluate the quality of RCTs and cohort studies. Data extracted from the articles were integrated to determine mean effective blood pump velocity (Qb), blood recirculation rates, secondary patency, catheter-related infection, catheter-related blood stream infection (CRBSI), thrombosis rates, and all-cause mortality for the three tip-designs. We performed meta-analysis on dichotomous outcomes using a random-effects model to evaluate risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (Cls). The effect sizes of continuous outcomes were reported as the mean difference (MD). Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were also performed. The study was registered in the PROSPERO (CRD42021297069).
Six RCTs and 11 cohort studies of 2617 individuals were included in our meta-analysis, of which 1088 individuals inserted split-tip catheters, 897 individuals inserted step-tip catheters and 650 received symmetrical-tip design catheters. Sym-tip performed better in mean Qb (MD = 43.85, 95% Cl = 18.13-69.56, = 0.0008) than step-tip. Split-tip had better outcomes vs step-tip in blood recirculation (RR = 3.44, 95% Cl = 2.49-4.39, < 0.00001). Sym-tip had significantly better outcomes compared with step-tip (RR = 0.28, 95%Cl = 0.09-0.81, = 2.34, = 0.02) and split-tip (RR = 0.19, 95% Cl = 0.09-0.43, < 0.0001) in thrombotic events. No significant difference was found in secondary patency, infection rates, CRBSI, and all-cause mortality among the three tip-designs.
The sym-tip of tunneled cuffed catheters performed better mean Qb, lower thrombotic events, and lower blood recirculation when blood line reversed, which may have an advantage over other two catheter-tips.
本荟萃分析旨在比较不同尖端设计的长期血液透析(HD)导管的有效性和安全性。
检索 PubMed、Embase 和 Cochrane 图书馆数据库,直到 2021 年 12 月 8 日,以确定比较阶梯尖端、分裂尖端或对称尖端设计导管的随机对照试验(RCT)和队列研究。使用 Cochrane 偏倚风险工具和 Newcastle-Ottawa 量表评估 RCT 和队列研究的质量。从文章中提取的数据被整合,以确定三种尖端设计的平均有效血液泵速度(Qb)、血液再循环率、继发性通畅率、导管相关感染、导管相关血流感染(CRBSI)、血栓形成率和全因死亡率。我们对二分类结局进行了荟萃分析,使用随机效应模型来评估风险比(RR)和 95%置信区间(Cl)。连续结局的效应量以均数差(MD)报告。还进行了敏感性和亚组分析。该研究已在 PROSPERO(CRD42021297069)中注册。
我们的荟萃分析纳入了 6 项 RCT 和 11 项队列研究共 2617 人,其中 1088 人插入分裂尖端导管,897 人插入阶梯尖端导管,650 人接受对称尖端设计导管。与阶梯尖端相比,对称尖端在平均 Qb 方面表现更好(MD=43.85,95%Cl=18.13-69.56, =0.0008)。与阶梯尖端相比,分裂尖端的血液再循环效果更好(RR=3.44,95%Cl=2.49-4.39, < 0.00001)。与阶梯尖端相比,对称尖端的血栓形成事件明显更好(RR=0.28,95%Cl=0.09-0.81, =2.34, =0.02)和分裂尖端(RR=0.19,95%Cl=0.09-0.43, < 0.0001)。在继发性通畅率、感染率、CRBSI 和全因死亡率方面,三种尖端设计之间没有发现显著差异。
隧道带袖套导管的对称尖端在血液线反转时表现出更好的平均 Qb、更低的血栓形成事件和更低的血液再循环,这可能优于其他两种导管尖端。