Search

Dysfunctional or infected hemodialysis polyester-cuffed catheters often require removal and are dissected out. The DermaPort™, percutaneous vascular access system (PVAS) permanently integrates a titanium mesh with the skin forming a stable, sterile barrier that allows for catheter placement, adjustment, or catheter exchange. This study aimed to describe the use and clinical outcomes of the DermaPort PVAS. Thirty-eight patients who were receiving hemodialysis via a tunneled catheter were enrolled in this prospective open-label study. Assessments were performed biweekly for the first month and monthly thereafter, which included physical examination of the site of implantation for infection, catheter blood flow, and need for interventions to maintain catheter patency. Patient satisfaction was assessed with a visual analog score. Implantation of technical success was 100% with the implantation site demonstrating early tissue incorporation after 2 weeks and full incorporation within 4 weeks. The DermaPort™ successfully enabled 31 catheter exchanges and 10 repositions thru the port without dissection in 18 patients with nine repositions (90%) performed at bedside. The mean primary patency of the DermaPort™ was 172 ± 150 days, and mean secondary patency was 430 ± 203 days. There were no reportable serious adverse events in 12,100 catheter days of use and zero explantations of the device attributed to infection. The observed catheter infection rate was 0.33/1000 days. The DermaPort™ system can be effectively implanted and facilitates catheter interventions in hemodialysis patients requiring long-term catheter use and has a lower infection rate than historical catheter infection rates. Clinical Trial Protocol Number DermaPort-001 (no clinicaltrials.gov number as study was performed 9 years ago). Health Canada Reference Application Number: 118393.

Background Most studies of diabetes self-management that show improved clinical outcome performance involve multiple, time-intensive educational sessions in a group format. Most provider performance feedback interventions do not improve intermediate outcomes, yet lack targeted, patient-level feedback. Methods 5,457 low-income adults with diabetes at eight federally-qualified community health centers participated in this nested randomized trial. Half of the patients received report card mailings quarterly; patients at 4 of 8 clinics received report cards at every clinic visit; and providers at 4 of 8 clinics received quarterly performance feedback with targeted patient-level data. Expert-recommended glycemic, lipid, and blood pressure outcomes were assessed. Assessment of report card utility and patient and provider satisfaction was conducted through mailed patient surveys and mid- and post-intervention provider interviews. Results Many providers and the majority of patients perceived the patient report card as being an effective tool. However, patient report card mailings did not improve process outcomes, nor did point-of-care distribution improve intermediate outcomes. Clinics with patient-level provider performance feedback achieved a greater absolute increase in the percentage of patients at target for glycemic control compared to control clinics (6.4% vs 3.8% respectively, Generalized estimating equations Standard Error 0.014, p < 0.001, CI -0.131 - -0.077). Provider reaction to performance feedback was mixed, with some citing frustration with the lack of both time and ancillary resources. Conclusions Patient performance report cards were generally well received by patients and providers, but were not associated with improved outcomes. Targeted, patient-level feedback to providers improved glycemic performance. Provider frustration highlights the need to supplement provider outreach efforts. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00827710