Evaluation of XXXX rates in converted dialysis catheters versus de novo placement in the setting of @entity1216 use.

@entity1 @entity1216 @entity1212 @entity4279 @entity281
PURPOSE: Prior studies have reported @entity281 rates of converting non-tunneled dialysis catheters (NTDCs) to tunneled dialysis catheters (TDCs) versus de novo placement of TDCs using @entity4279 . @entity1216 , per the Center of Disease Control guidelines, has been exclusively used in our institution since 2005. Therefore, our study aims to determine whether there is a difference in @entity281 rates between conversion and de novo placement when utilizing @entity1216 . MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis from 1/1/2009 to 8/10/2012 was performed of @entity1 who underwent placement of NTDCs, which were subsequently converted to TDCs and those who underwent de novo TDC placement. To assess the rate of @entity281 , the following data points were collected: date of procedure(s), indication, outcomes, site of catheter insertion, pre- and post-procedure laboratory values, complications, @entity281 rates within the life of the initially placed catheter, catheter days, and survival. RESULTS: The conversion cohort was composed of 205 @entity1 , 135 of whom were lost to follow-up, leaving 70 @entity1 . The de novo cohort included 70 randomly selected @entity1 . Of the 70 @entity1 who underwent conversion, 23 developed a @entity1212 , with an @entity281 rate of 0.26 events per 100 catheter days. Of the 70 de novo catheters, 20 developed @entity281 with an @entity281 rate of 0.25 events per 100 catheters days. CONCLUSION: In this series, there is no difference in @entity281 rates between conversion and de novo TDC placement when utilizing @entity1216 as the sterilization agent. However, these @entity281 rates are superior to those reported when using @entity4279 .
