Hm. Richard et al., A randomized, prospective evaluation of the Tesio, Ash split, and Opti-flow hemodialysis catheters, J VAS INT R, 12(4), 2001, pp. 431-435
PURPOSE: A randomized, prospective evaluation of three high-flow hemodialys
is catheters.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-four patients were randomly assigned 113 Tesi
o, Ash split, and Opti-flow catheters from December 1998 through Tune 1999.
Insertion times, procedural complications, and ease of insertion were reco
rded. Mean catheter flow rates were recorded at first dialysis, 30 days, an
d 90 days. Patency, catheter survival, and catheter-related infections were
evaluated.
RESULTS: Thirty-eight Ash split, 39 Opti-flow, and 36 Tesio catheters were
placed. Tesio mean insertion time (41.5 min) was significantly longer than
Ash split (29.4 min) or Opti-flow (29.6 min) (P =.004). There were four com
plications related to Tesio catheters (three cases of pericatheter bleeding
, one air embolism), one related to an Opti-flow catheter (pericatheter ble
eding), and zero related to Ash split catheters. Opti-flow and Ash split ca
theters were significantly easier to insert than Tesio catheters (P =.041).
Mean flow rates were not significantly different among the catheters initi
ally (P =.112), at 30 days (P =.281), or at 90 days (P =.112). Catheter-rel
ated infection rates per 100 catheter days were 0.12 for Ash split, 0.35 fo
r Opti-flow, and 0.14 for Tesio. Median catheter survival was 302 days for
Ash split, 176 days for Opti-flow, and 228 days for Tesio.
CONCLUSIONS: Opti-Flow and Ash split catheters were faster and easier to pl
ace than Tesio catheters. There was no difference in hemodialysis flow rate
s or catheter survival.