Search

Abstract Introduction To prevent infection and thrombosis of central venous catheters (CVCs) in hemodialysis patients, different CVC lock solutions are available. Taurolidine-based solutions and citrate in different concentrations are frequently used, but no definite conclusions with regard to superiority have been drawn. Methods In this retrospective, observational, multicenter study, we aimed to assess the risk for removal of CVC due to infection or catheter malfunction in hemodialysis patients with CVC access for different lock solutions: taurolidine, high-concentrated citrate (46.7%) and low-concentrated citrate (4 or 30%). A multivariable Cox-regression model was used to calculate hazard ratio’s (HR). Results We identified 1514 patients (median age 65 years, 59% male). In 96 (6%) taurolidine-based lock solutions were used. In 1418 (94%) citrate-based lock solutions were used (high-concentrated 73%, low-concentrated 20%). Taurolidine-based lock solutions were associated with a significantly lower hazard for removal of CVC due to infection or malfunction combined (HR 0.34, 95% CI 0.19–0.64), and for removal of CVC due to infection or malfunction separately (HR 0.36, 95% CI 0.15–0.88 and HR0.33, 95% CI 0.14–0.79). High-concentrated citrate lock solutions were not associated with a decreased hazard for our outcomes, compared to low-concentrated citrate lock solutions. Conclusion Removal of CVC due to infection or catheter malfunction occurred less often with taurolidine-based lock solutions. We present the largest cohort comparing taurolidine- and citrate-based lock solutions yet. However, due to the retrospective observational nature of this study, conclusions with regard to superiority should be drawn with caution.

Introduction: To prevent infection and thrombosis of central venous catheters (CVCs) in hemodialysis patients, different CVC lock solutions are available. Taurolidine-based solutions and citrate in different concentrations are frequently used, but no definite conclusions with regard to superiority have been drawn.Methods: In this retrospective, observational, multicenter study, we aimed to assess the risk for removal of CVC due to infection or catheter malfunction in hemodialysis patients with CVC access for different lock solutions: taurolidine, high-concentrated citrate (46.7%) and low-concentrated citrate (4 or 30%). A multivariable Cox-regression model was used to calculate hazard ratio's (HR).Results: We identified 1514 patients (median age 65 years, 59% male). In 96 (6%) taurolidine-based lock solutions were used. In 1418 (94%) citrate-based lock solutions were used (high-concentrated 73%, low-concentrated 20%). Taurolidine-based lock solutions were associated with a significantly lower hazard for removal of CVC due to infection or malfunction combined (HR 0.34, 95% CI 0.19-0.64), and for removal of CVC due to infection or malfunction separately (HR 0.36, 95% CI 0.15-0.88 and HR0.33, 95% CI 0.14-0.79). High-concentrated citrate lock solutions were not associated with a decreased hazard for our outcomes, compared to low-concentrated citrate lock solutions.Conclusion: Removal of CVC due to infection or catheter malfunction occurred less often with taurolidine-based lock solutions. We present the largest cohort comparing taurolidine- and citrate-based lock solutions yet. However, due to the retrospective observational nature of this study, conclusions with regard to superiority should be drawn with caution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]