Dataset Information

Prevention of tunneled cuffed catheter dysfunction with prophylactic use of a taurolidine urokinase lock: A randomized double-blind trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The efficacy and cost-effectiveness of prophylactic thrombolytic locks in hemodialysis patients at high-risk of thrombotic dialysis catheter dysfunction is uncertain. We investigated this question in a double-blinded randomized controlled study.

Methods

Prevalent hemodialysis patients from 8 Belgian hemodialysis units, with ≥2 separate episodes of thrombotic dysfunction of their tunneled cuffed catheter during the 6 months before inclusion, were randomized to either: taurolidine heparin locks thrice weekly (control arm) or the same locks twice a week combined with taurolidine urokinase locks once a week before the longest interval without HD (TaurolockU arm). The primary efficacy outcome was the incidence rate of catheter thrombotic dysfunction requiring thrombolytic locks to restore function.

Results

68 hemodialysis patients (32 controls, 36 urokinase) were followed during 9875 catheter days between May 2015 and June 2017. Incidence rate of thrombotic catheter dysfunction was 4.8 in TaurolockU vs 12.1/1000 catheter days in control group (rate ratio 0.39; 95%CI 0.23-0.64). 15/36 (42%) catheters in the treatment group required at least one therapeutic urokinase lock vs 23/32 (72%) in the control group (P = 0.012). The two groups did not differ significantly in catheter-related bloodstream infection and combined cost of prophylactic and therapeutic catheter locks. The TaurolockU group had a numerically higher number of episodes of refractory thrombosis.

Conclusions

Prophylactic use of urokinase locks is highly effective in reducing the number of thrombotic catheter dysfunctions in catheters with a history of recurring dysfunction. Prophylactic use of urokinase locks did not reduce the overall costs associated with catheter locks and was associated with a numerically higher number of episodes of refractory thrombosis.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02036255.

SUBMITTER: Bonkain F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8136626 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCatheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSIs) are a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in critically ill patients, contributing to prolonged hospital stays and increased costs. Whether taurolidine lock solutions (TLS) are beneficial for the prevention of CRBSIs remains controversial. In this meta-analysis, we aim to assess the efficacy of TLS for preventing CRBSIs.MethodsWe conducted a systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials that reported on the effects of TLS for preventing CRBSIs. The primary outcome in these studies was catheter-related bloodstream infections, with microbial distribution of CRBSI and catheter-associated thrombosis as secondary outcomes. Data were combined using random-effects models owing to significant clinical heterogeneity.ResultsSix randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted from 2004 through 2013 involving 431 patients and 86,078 catheter-days were included in the review. TLS were significantly associated with a lower incidence of CRBSIs when compared to heparin lock solutions (Risk Ratio [RR], 0.34; 95% Confidence Interval [CI], 0.21-0.55). Use of TLS significantly decreased the incidence of CRBSIs from gram-negative (G-) bacteria (P = 0.004; RR, 0.27; CI, 0.11-0.65), and was associated with a non-significant decrease in gram-positive (G+) bacterial infections (P = 0.07; RR, 0.41; CI, 0.15-1.09). No significant association was observed with TLS and catheter-associated thrombosis (RR, 1.99; CI, 0.75-5.28).ConclusionsThe use of TLS reduced the incidence of CRBSIs without obvious adverse effects or bacterial resistance. However, the susceptibility of G+ and G- bacteria to taurolidine and the risk for catheter-associated thrombosis of TLS are indeterminate due to limited data. The results should be treated with caution due to the limited sample sizes and methodological deficiencies of included studies. Therefore, additional well-designed and adequately powered RCTs are needed to confirm these findings.

Project description:Catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) is one of the most frequent complications in patients with cancer who have central venous catheters (CVCs) implanted and is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Taurolidine is a non-antibiotic agent with broad-spectrum antimicrobial activity, which has been used as a lock solution to prevent CRBSI in some settings. However, little is known about its usefulness in high-risk adult neutropenic patients with cancer. This prospective randomised clinical trial aims to test the hypothesis that taurolidine-citrate lock solution is more effective than placebo for preventing catheter infection in neutropenic haematological patients.This study is a prospective, multicentre, randomised, double-blinded, parallel, superiority, placebo-controlled trial. Patients with haematological cancer who are expected to develop prolonged neutropenia (>?7 days) and who have a non-tunnelled CVC implanted will be randomised to receive prophylactic taurolidine-citrate-heparin solution using a lock technique (study group) or heparin alone (placebo group). The primary endpoint will be bacterial colonisation of the CVC hubs. The secondary endpoints will be the incidence of CRBSI, CVC removal, adverse events, and 30-day case-fatality rate.The lock technique is a preventive strategy that inhibits bacterial colonisation in the catheter hubs, which is the initial step of endoluminal catheter colonisation and the development of infection. Taurolidine is a nontoxic agent that does not develop antibiotic resistance because it acts as an antiseptic rather than an antibiotic. Taurolidine has shown controversial results in the few trials conducted in cancer patients. These studies have important limitations due to the lack of data on adult and/or high-risk neutropenic patients, the type of catheters studied (tunnelled or ports), and the lack of information regarding the intervention (e.g. dwelling of the solution, time, and periodicity of the lock technique). If our hypothesis is proven, the study could provide important solid evidence on the potential usefulness of this preventive procedure in a population at high risk of CRBSI, in whom this complication may significantly impair patient outcome.ISRCTN, ISRCTN47102251 . Registered on 9 September 2015.

Project description:For patients who have a ventricular tachyarrhythmic event, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are a mainstay of therapy to prevent sudden death. However, ICD shocks are painful, can result in clinical depression, and do not offer complete protection against death from arrhythmia. We designed this randomized trial to examine whether prophylactic radiofrequency catheter ablation of arrhythmogenic ventricular tissue would reduce the incidence of ICD therapy.Eligible patients with a history of a myocardial infarction underwent defibrillator implantation for spontaneous ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation. The patients did not receive antiarrhythmic drugs. Patients were randomly assigned to defibrillator implantation alone or defibrillator implantation with adjunctive catheter ablation (64 patients in each group). Ablation was performed with the use of a substrate-based approach in which the myocardial scar is mapped and ablated while the heart remains predominantly in sinus rhythm. The primary end point was survival free from any appropriate ICD therapy.The mortality rate 30 days after ablation was zero, and there were no significant changes in ventricular function or functional class during the mean (+/-SD) follow-up period of 22.5+/-5.5 months. Twenty-one patients assigned to defibrillator implantation alone (33%) and eight patients assigned to defibrillator implantation plus ablation (12%) received appropriate ICD therapy (antitachycardia pacing or shocks) (hazard ratio in the ablation group, 0.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.15 to 0.78, P=0.007). Among these patients, 20 in the control group (31%) and 6 in the ablation group (9%) received shocks (P=0.003). Mortality was not increased in the group assigned to ablation as compared with the control group (9% vs. 17%, P=0.29).In this randomized trial, prophylactic substrate-based catheter ablation reduced the incidence of ICD therapy in patients with a history of myocardial infarction who received ICDs for the secondary prevention of sudden death. (Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN62488166 [controlled-trials.com].).

Project description:BACKGROUND:Non-tunneled hemodialysis catheters are currently used for critically ill patients with acute kidney injury requiring extracorporeal renal replacement therapy. Strategies to prevent catheter dysfunction and infection with catheter locks remain controversial. METHODS:In a multicenter, randomized, controlled, double-blind trial, we compared two strategies for catheter locking of non-tunneled hemodialysis catheters, namely trisodium citrate at 4% (intervention group) versus unfractionated heparin (control group), in patients aged 18 years or older admitted to the intensive care unit and in whom a first non-tunneled hemodialysis catheter was to be inserted by the jugular or femoral vein. The primary endpoint was length of event-free survival of the first non-tunneled hemodialysis catheter. Secondary endpoints were: rate of fibrinolysis, incidence of catheter dysfunction and incidence of catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI), all per 1000 catheter-days; number of hemorrhagic events requiring transfusion, length of stay in intensive care and in hospital; 28-day mortality. RESULTS:Overall, 396 randomized patients completed the trial: 199 in the citrate group and 197 in the heparin group. There was no significant difference in baseline characteristics between groups. The duration of event-free survival of the first non-tunneled hemodialysis catheter was not significantly different between groups: 7 days (IQR 3-10) in the citrate group and 5 days (IQR 3-11) in the heparin group (p = 0.51). Rates of catheter thrombosis, CRBSI, and adverse events were not statistically different between groups. CONCLUSIONS:In critically ill patients, there was no significant difference in the duration of event-free survival of the first non-tunneled hemodialysis catheter between trisodium citrate 4% and heparin as a locking solution. Catheter thrombosis, catheter-related infection, and adverse events were not statistically different between the two groups. Trial registration Registered with Clinicaltrials.gov under the number NCT01962116. Registered 14 October 2013.