We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
A comparison between blood flow outcomes of tunneled external jugular and internal jugular hemodialysis catheters.
PURPOSE: The right internal jugular (RIJ) vein is preferred for placement of long-term venous catheters (CVC) for hemodialysis (HD). Use of left IJ vein potentially depletes the access site for arteriovenous fistula (AVF) or arteriovenous graft (AVF) placement because of the high rates of central venous stenosis. The right external jugular (EJ) vein is a viable alternative to the LIJ. The purpose of this study is to compare blood flow outcomes in a series of percutaneously placed external jugular (EJ), LIJ and RIJ HD catheters.
METHODS: Using a prospectively collected database, we identified 46 hemodialysis patients who received a tunneled catheter during a 4-year period. Blood flow outcomes of RIJ, LIJ, and EJ catheters that were date-matched over the study period were compared. Using ANOVA, the blood flow outcomes of the 3 tunneled catheter techniques at 30-d and 90-d were compared.
RESULTS: The 90-d blood flow outcomes of the 3 groups did not differ significantly. The 30-d blood flow was found to be 348.5± 56.62, 341± 22.42, and 365.7± 71.76 mL/min for RIJ, LIJ, and EJ respectively (P<.05). Using multiple regression analysis, no covariates (age, sex, race, diabetes) were found to be associated with blood flow outcomes at 30-d or 90-d. No identifiable factors were found to be associated with the difference in blood flow between 30-d and 90-d either.
CONCLUSIONS: EJ blood flow outcomes at 30-d and 90-d were comparable to both LIJ and RIJ historic data. Further prospective investigation is required to define the role of EJ CVC placement as another potential long-term access modality.
METHODS: Using a prospectively collected database, we identified 46 hemodialysis patients who received a tunneled catheter during a 4-year period. Blood flow outcomes of RIJ, LIJ, and EJ catheters that were date-matched over the study period were compared. Using ANOVA, the blood flow outcomes of the 3 tunneled catheter techniques at 30-d and 90-d were compared.
RESULTS: The 90-d blood flow outcomes of the 3 groups did not differ significantly. The 30-d blood flow was found to be 348.5± 56.62, 341± 22.42, and 365.7± 71.76 mL/min for RIJ, LIJ, and EJ respectively (P<.05). Using multiple regression analysis, no covariates (age, sex, race, diabetes) were found to be associated with blood flow outcomes at 30-d or 90-d. No identifiable factors were found to be associated with the difference in blood flow between 30-d and 90-d either.
CONCLUSIONS: EJ blood flow outcomes at 30-d and 90-d were comparable to both LIJ and RIJ historic data. Further prospective investigation is required to define the role of EJ CVC placement as another potential long-term access modality.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app