Skip to main content

Temporary central venous catheter at hemodialysis initiation and reasons for use: a cross-sectional study

Abstract

Background

Creating permanent vascular access (VA) is recommended before hemodialysis initiation in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Although many patients are still introduced to hemodialysis with temporary central venous catheters (CVCs), the reasons for their use remain unclear. We aimed to clarify the characteristics of Japanese patients introduced to hemodialysis using temporary CVCs, the reasons for their use, and whether this rate can be reduced in the future.

Methods

We conducted this cross-sectional study in an acute care general hospital in Japan. We enrolled 393 patients aged ≥ 18 years who received a permanent VA creation for initiating hemodialysis. We classified participants into the temporary CVC group or the permanent VA group according to the VA type at hemodialysis initiation and compared their backgrounds. We identified why permanent VA could not be used at hemodialysis initiation for patients in the temporary CVC group.

Results

Of the 393 patients, 137 (35%) initiated hemodialysis with a temporary CVC, and arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs) were created as the first VA in all patients during hospitalization following hemodialysis initiation. The remaining 256 patients (65%) initiated hemodialysis via AVF cannulation. The duration of predialysis nephrology care was significantly shorter in the temporary CVC group than that in the permanent VA group. The median time from AVF creation to the first successful cannulation was also shorter in the temporary CVC group (8 vs. 66 days, P < 0.001), but the estimated glomerular filtration rate values at hemodialysis initiation did not differ. Reasons for temporary CVC use were varied and complex. Problems on the part of healthcare providers, patient behavioral issues, and characteristics of causative kidney disease itself were underlying reasons. Delayed referral to a nephrologist was less frequent than expected (16%) and the most commonly reported reason (20%) was that a nephrologist was unable to predict the timing of hemodialysis initiation.

Conclusions

Patients with ESRD should be referred to a nephrologist earlier for AVF creation. However, given the already relatively high rate of hemodialysis initiation with permanent VA in Japan, we considered it surprisingly difficult to further reduce the temporary CVC usage rate in Japan.

Background

The number of patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) continues to increase, with more than 2 million patients being treated for ESRD worldwide. Of the three renal replacement therapies (RRTs)—hemodialysis (HD), peritoneal dialysis (PD), and kidney transplantation—the largest proportion of patients were receiving HD [1]. Maintaining easily usable vascular access (VA) is critical in patients on HD [2], and this access is greatly influenced by how the initial VA was created [3, 4]. The Japanese Society for Dialysis Therapy (JSDT) clinical guidelines for the construction and repair of VA recommends that the timing of VA creation should be determined based on the clinical symptoms and an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 15 mL/min/1.73 m2 or less. It also advises predicting the timing of HD initiation from laboratory data and clinical symptoms and creating an arteriovenous fistula (AVF), which is the most common type of VA, at least 2 to 4 weeks before the initial cannulation [5].

These recommendations are based on reports from the JSDT Statistic Survey indicating that the mortality rate was significantly lower in patients who received permanent VA creation 1 to 6 months before HD initiation than in patients who received permanent VA creation between 1 month and the day before HD initiation [6]; likewise, the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS) indicated that receiving the first cannulation within 2 weeks after AVF creation increased VA failure [7]. Additionally, HD initiation with a temporary central venous catheter (CVC) has been reported to have higher costs and longer hospital stays than permanent VA, such as an AVF and arteriovenous graft (AVG) [8].

However, in many cases, HD must be initiated with a temporary CVC in emergency situations due to delayed consultations or rapidly progressive renal diseases. Additionally, it is difficult to create a well-timed VA because the practical conditions of the community and facility, including the surgeon’s intensions and operating room availability, are complicated [2]. By comparison, 80% of patients in the USA used a temporary CVC at HD initiation [1] whereas this rate was approximately 30% in Japan [9, 10].

Although decreasing the rate of using a temporary CVC at HD introduction would both improve patient prognosis and control healthcare costs by reducing hospitalization time and VA failure, few reports have identified the characteristics and reasons associated with initiating HD with a temporary CVC [11]. We believe that it is possible to identify strategies for reducing the rate of HD initiation with a temporary CVC by determining the reasons for using a temporary CVC at HD initiation. Therefore, this study aimed to clarify the characteristics of patients who were initiated on HD with a temporary CVC and to determine why temporary CVCs were used for reducing the rate of HD initiation with temporary CVCs in the future. We also surveyed the types of permanent VA created and the time from the creation to the first cannulation of permanent VA.

Methods

Study design and participants

This cross-sectional study was conducted in a single facility of the Iwate Prefectural Central Hospital, an acute care general hospital in Japan. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) patients who had received permanent VA creation at our department for the introduction of chronic HD between April 2014 and March 2019; (2) 18 years of age or older; and (3) patients in whom HD was initiated by March 2020 at our hospital or two related facilities. Data on 414 patients who met these criteria were extracted from medical records, including surgical registers and dialysis patient lists. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) patients who discontinued HD due to recovery of renal function (n = 9), (2) patients with a history of PD (n = 8), (3) patients with a history of HD (n = 1), and (4) patients who died during hospitalization following HD initiation (n = 3). Thus, 393 patients were enrolled in this study (Fig. 1). We classified the participants into the temporary CVC group or the permanent VA group according to the type of VA at HD initiation and compared their background characteristics.

Fig. 1
figure1

Screening, exclusion, and classification of the patients

Clinical parameters

Clinical data at HD initiation were obtained from medical records and included age, sex, causative disease leading to ESRD, eGFR, serum creatinine levels, and hemoglobin levels. The eGFR was calculated using the three-variable Japanese equation (age, sex, and serum creatinine) [12]. The periods in which the patients received predialysis medical care from nephrologists were categorized as follows: 0–6 months, 6–12 months, 1–2 years, 2–5 years, or > 5 years.

Identification of the reasons for using a temporary CVC at HD initiation

We reviewed medical records to identify why the patients in the temporary CVC group were unable to establish permanent VA at HD initiation. The reason was determined by the concurrence of two nephrologists. We also surveyed the types of first permanent VA created in the CVC group and the time from HD initiation to the creation and first cannulation of permanent VA.

The preferred types of VA in our department

The most preferred type of VA was radio-cephalic AVF, followed by brachio-cephalic AVF, and ulno-basilic AVF. Several AVGs and subcutaneously fixed superficial arteries had been created when AVFs could not be created, but no tunneled CVCs were created for several years in our department.

Statistical analysis

The clinical parameters are shown as the mean ± standard deviation, median (25th–75th percentiles), or percentage, as appropriate. The Student’s t test and Mann-Whitney U test were used to compare normally and non-normally distributed variables between two groups, respectively. Chi-square tests of independence were used to compare categorical variables between the groups. We also performed a multiple logistic regression analysis to determine the characteristics associated with temporary CVC use in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Statistical analyses were performed using STATA version 15.8 (Stata Corp., College Station, TX). P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Patient groups and their first permanent VA

Of the 393 patients included in this study, HD was initiated using a temporary CVC in 137 (35%). An AVF was created in all patients in the temporary CVC group during hospitalization following HD initiation, and most patients were transferred to a maintenance dialysis facility after their AVF became usable. All of the remaining 256 patients (65%) initiated HD via AVF cannulation. None of the patients in either group had an AVG or tunneled CVC established as their first permanent VA (Fig. 1).

Comparison of patient backgrounds between the temporary CVC group and the permanent VA group

The patient backgrounds of both groups are shown in Table 1. There was no difference in the mean age between the temporary CVC group (67.4 ± 14.4 years) and the permanent VA group (66.2 ± 14.7 years). Males accounted for more than two-thirds of the patients in both groups. In the temporary CVC group, 60% of the patients had been treated by a nephrologist for less than 6 months, and only 35% had been treated by a nephrologist for more than 1 year. By contrast, in the permanent VA group, 71% of the patients had received predialysis nephrology care for more than 1 year, and only 18% had received such care for less than 6 months (P < 0.001). In both groups, diabetic kidney disease was the most common cause of ESRD, followed by hypertensive nephrosclerosis and chronic glomerulonephritis. The temporary CVC group comprised more patients with rapidly progressive glomerulonephritis (RPGN) and acute kidney injury (AKI) than that in the permanent VA group (9.5% vs. 2.7% and 3.6% vs. 0%, respectively, P = 0.004). A slightly higher percentage of patients in the permanent VA group had diabetic kidney disease than in the temporary CVC group (39% vs. 33%, respectively). The median serum creatinine level in the temporary CVC group (7.90 mg/dL (25th–75th percentiles, 6.76–9.69)) was significantly lower than that in the permanent VA group (8.64 mg/dL (7.28–10.37)) (P = 0.017), but the eGFR values did not differ significantly (5.34 (4.36–6.65) and 5.03 (4.14–6.06) mL/min/1.73 m2, respectively (P = 0.057)).

Table 1 Patient characteristics

Multiple logistic regression analysis to determine characteristics associated with temporary CVC use in patients with CKD only (Table 2)

After the exclusion of RPGN and AKI, 368 patients with CKD remained. Age, sex, and kidney disease due to ESRD were not associated with temporary CVC use. Nephrology care had a strong negative association with temporary CVC use, with an odds ratio of 0.643 per one category increase (P < 0.001). eGFR and hemoglobin levels were also significantly associated with temporary CVC use, although the causal relationship was unclear.

Table 2 Multiple logistic regression analysis to determine characteristics associated with temporary CVC use in patients with only CKD (n = 368)

The time to the first successful cannulation of permanent VAs

All patients in both groups had an AVF created as their first type of permanent VA. The median time from the AVF creation to the first successful cannulation was significantly shorter in the temporary CVC group than in the permanent VA group (8 vs. 66 days, Table 2, P < 0.001). As shown in Fig. 2a, more than 80% of patients in the temporary CVC group had an AVF successfully punctured within 14 days after AVF creation. Therefore, HD at the initial puncture was often performed in a single-needle mode. By contrast, in the permanent VA group, 175 patients (68%) were punctured after 30 days, and 46 patients (18%) were punctured after 6 months (Fig. 2b). In the temporary CVC group, the median time from HD initiation to AVF creation was 10 days (6–17), and the median time from HD initiation to the first successful cannulation of AVF was 19 days (14–24). Thus, more than half of these patients used their temporary CVC for less than 3 weeks.

Fig. 2
figure2

Histogram (percentage) of the median time from the creation to the first cannulation of AVFs in the temporary CVC group (a) and in the permanent VA group (b). The time for the temporary CVC group was significantly shorter than the time for the permanent VA group (8 vs. 66 days, P < 0.001). More than 80% of patients in the temporary CVC group had an AVF successfully punctured within 14 days. In contrast, 175 patients (68%) in the permanent VA group were punctured after 30 days and 46 patients (18%) were punctured after 6 months

Reasons for using a temporary CVC at HD initiation

The reasons for using a temporary CVC at HD initiation were varied and complex. These reasons could be categorized into nine groups based on the discussion and agreement of two nephrologists and are listed in Table 3 in a descending order of number. The most commonly reported reason (20%) for using a temporary CVC was the physician being unable to predict the timing of HD initiation despite the patient attending our outpatient clinic for CKD. Delayed referral was reported less frequently than expected (16%), and a surprisingly high 15% of patients reported temporary CVC use because of acute exacerbation of kidney function from infection, cardiovascular disease, gastrointestinal disease, etc. Furthermore, 24% of the reasons for temporary CVC use were related to problems with patients’ behavior, including patients who could not reach a decision to create permanent VA for their hesitation and refusal and patients who had not seen a physician. The various characteristics of the causative kidney disease itself were responsible for initiating temporary CVC use in approximately 20% of such patients, including the patients with RPGN or AKI, patients whose edema was significantly worse, and patients on immunosuppressive therapy for non-diabetic nephrotic syndrome. HD could not be initiated in seven cases (5%) using a created AVF because of obstruction or underdevelopment. In summary, problems on the part of healthcare providers, patient behavioral issues, and the characteristics of causative kidney disease itself were the underlying reasons for using a temporary CVC at HD initiation.

Table 3 The reasons for HD initiation using a temporary CVC

Patient characteristics stratified by the reasons for using a temporary CVC at HD initiation

The patient characteristics stratified by the reasons for using a temporary CVC at HD initiation are shown in Additional file 1. The patients who had not seen a physician or who had their hospital visits interrupted were the youngest with a mean age of 57 years and had the lowest mean hemoglobin level (7.3 g/dL). The highest eGFR was found in patients on immunosuppressive therapy for non-diabetic nephrotic syndrome (median of 13.68 mL/min/1.73 m2). The patients who required urgent HD initiation because of RPGN or AKI comprised a higher percentage of women (53%); these patients also had the lowest median eGFR (3.96 mL/min/1.73 m2). Diabetic kidney disease was present in two-thirds of the patients who had initiated HD using temporary CVC due to severe edema. Not surprisingly, the duration of nephrologist treatment was extremely short in the patients who already presented with ESRD at our referral despite attending another outpatient clinic and in patients who had not seen a physician or had interrupted their hospital visits. Thus, the categorized groups had patient characteristics consistent with their respective reasons for temporary CVC use.

Discussion

This study in a Japanese acute care general hospital showed that 35% of patients were introduced to HD with a temporary CVC. The remaining 65% were introduced to HD with an AVF. The present study also revealed that a usable AVF, which was not an AVG or a tunneled CVC, could be created even in patients of the temporary CVC group during consecutive hospitalization following HD initiation. The most significant difference between the two groups was the duration of predialysis nephrology care. In the temporary CVC group, 60% of patients had been treated by a nephrologist for less than 6 months whereas only 18% of patients in the permanent VA group had been treated for less than 6 months. Additionally, the time to the first puncture of the AVF was significantly shorter in the temporary CVC group than in the permanent VA group. We found that the reasons for using a temporary CVC at HD initiation were varied and complex. Problems on the part of healthcare providers, patient behavioral issues, and the characteristics of causative kidney disease itself were the underlying reasons.

All patients in this study received an AVF creation as their first permanent type of VA, which had the best prognosis of all types of VA. Considering that approximately 90% of chronic HD patients in Japan use AVFs and just under 10% use AVGs [13], this was a very favorable result. The rate of using a temporary CVC at HD initiation was reported to be approximately 20–30% in Japan [9, 14]. This slightly higher proportion in the present study might be due to the higher rate of RPGN and AKI in patients undergoing HD initiation compared with a Japan nationwide report [15]. Additionally, patients who started HD using a temporary CVC in this study could use an AVF at a median of 19 days, and all patients could use an AVF within 90 days. Compared to the USA, where 68% of patients were still using a CVC at 90 days after HD initiation [1], we found that AVFs were created promptly in the patients in whom HD was initiated with a temporary CVC in this study. Although various international comparisons have been conducted by the DOPPS, the rate of initiating HD with a temporary CVC should be compared, and a numerical target should be determined in the practice guidelines.

In the present study, AVFs were punctured earlier in the temporary CVC group compared with previous studies. The late referral to a nephrologist and the short duration of predialysis nephrology care were reported to increase the rate of HD initiation with a temporary CVC and lead to early AVF cannulation [16, 17]. Although this study did not investigate patient prognosis, a late referral and HD initiation with a temporary CVC have been reported to be associated with poor prognosis [18, 19], and early AVF puncture has been shown to increase AVF failure [9, 16]. Thus, particular attention should be paid to AVF failure in patients with a temporary CVC.

To date, few studies have investigated the reasons for using a temporary CVC at HD initiation. A previous study more than 20 years ago cited late referral to a nephrologist, late referral to a surgeon, and late decision-making of the patient as the main reasons for using temporary CVCs [11]. However, the primary reason identified in this study was the failure of an attending nephrologist to predict the timing of dialysis initiation; only 16% of a temporary CVC use was attributed to a late referral. Furthermore, we should emphasize that in our hospital, we, the nephrologists who decided to initiate HD, created the permanent VA ourselves and were easily able to coordinate the date of surgery; thus, there was no delay in referral to the surgeon and few environmental factors that delayed the creation of VA.

It was unclear why AVF could be created in all subjects of the present study, but it might be the result of efforts to create an AVF as much as possible by the nephrologists who were managing VA after HD introduction themselves. Compared with the USA and European countries, the small number of obese patients in Japan might have affected the creation and maturation of AVFs [13]. We have found it difficult to create an AVF in patients with a body mass index of 30 or higher [2]. However, we should not neglect our efforts to create an AVF because an AVF is considered the type of VA with the highest patency rate even in obese patients [20].

In the present study, the duration of predialysis nephrology care was significantly shorter in the temporary CVC group than in the permanent VA group, and duration of predialysis nephrology care was revealed to have a strong association with temporary CVC use in the multiple logistic regression analysis. Although late referral to a nephrologist was not a direct cause for using a temporary CVC at HD initiation in many patients, the shorter duration of predialysis nephrology care might have had an indirect effect, particularly on the group of patients who could not make the decision to receive permanent VA creation for their hesitation and refusal. Patients’ conditions including the type of VA at HD initiation have been reported to influence their prognosis after the initiation of HD [10, 21, 22]. Therefore, an attending physician should refer CKD patients to a nephrologist at least 6 months before the predicted initiation of HD based on the declining eGFR.

We found that there were some patients in whom HD had to be initiated using CVCs in the current medical standard, including some patients with AKI and external factors such as infectious diseases and some with edema so severe that AVF could not be created. This study also revealed that the timing for starting dialysis was unpredictable in many patients despite having visited a nephrologist. Although a previous study discussed how to predict dialysis initiation [23], it may be difficult even for nephrologists to accurately predict the timing for dialysis initiation, and the development of a more accurate tool to predict dialysis initiation may be needed. In addition, there is a large difference in attitudes concerning the creation of an AVF before initiating HD. Opinions differ not only between physicians in different facilities but also between physicians of the same facility. We therefore consider it necessary to spread the significance of AVF creation before initiating HD to many physicians. Conversely, 18% of patients in the permanent VA group started HD at least 6 months after AVF creation, and several patients were initiated HD using a CVC due to an AVF obstruction. In Japan, the mortality rate before beginning dialysis in CKD patients is lower than that in the USA or European countries [24, 25]. However, we must be careful not to create AVFs too early because the increased risk of AVF obstruction has been reported in Japan when AVFs are created too early [26].

The time to the first cannulation from AVF creation in the CVC group was very short in this study compared with other countries [9]. Two main reasons for this difference were considered. First, this may have been performed to reduce the risk of infection. Because the long implantation of temporary CVCs is known to increase the risk of catheter infection [27], shortening the duration of their use might have been a priority in the subjects of this study. Secondly, AVF punctures might have been performed earlier so the patients could be discharged earlier because of the emphasis on shortening the length of hospital stay given Japan’s insurance practice. However, since early AVF cannulation may be more problematic in the long term, it is necessary to examine whether early AVF cannulation increases AVF failures after HD initiation in the subjects of this study in the future.

This study has some strengths compared to a similar survey in the past [11], such as collecting more details and performing a comparison with the permanent VA group. However, the results should be understood under some limitations. First, because this study was conducted at a single center in the northeast area of Japan, the findings in this study might not be generalizable to patients outside of Japan under different healthcare systems. Furthermore, more than 90% of patients with ESRD chose HD as their first RRT in our department where this study was conducted. In situations where more CKD patients choose PD or preemptive kidney transplantation as their first RRT, the number of patients who initiated HD with a permanent VA may decrease and the using rate of temporary CVC may increase. Second, because this was a cross-sectional study, we could not clarify the patients’ survival and VA prognosis in the temporary CVC group.

Conclusions

This study revealed the characteristics and reasons why patients were initiated on HD with a temporary CVC. ESRD patients should be referred to a nephrologist earlier for AVF creation. However, we found that the reasons for using a temporary CVC at HD initiation were varied and complex. Given the already relatively high rate of HD initiation with permanent VA in Japan, it may be surprisingly difficult to further reduce the rate of temporary CVC use at HD initiation by changing the behavior of healthcare providers and CKD patients. Future international prospective studies are necessary to reveal more details of the reasons for using a temporary CVC at HD initiation worldwide, and we hope the rate of temporary CVC use is gradually reduced as much as possible in the future.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the present study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Abbreviations

AKI:

Acute kidney injury

AVF:

Arteriovenous fistula

AVG:

Arteriovenous graft

CKD:

Chronic kidney disease

CVC:

Central venous catheter

DOPPS:

Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study

eGFR:

Estimated glomerular filtration rate

ESRD:

End-stage renal disease

HD:

Hemodialysis

JSDT:

Japan Society for Dialysis Therapy

PD:

Peritoneal dialysis

RPGN:

Rapidly progressive glomerulonephritis

RRT:

Renal replacement therapy

VA:

Vascular access

References

  1. 1.

    Saran R, Robinson B, Abbott KC, Agodoa LYC, Bhave N, Bragg-Gresham J, et al. Epidemiology of kidney disease in the United States. Am J Kidney Dis. 2018;71(3 Suppl 1):A7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Woo K, Lok CE. New insights into dialysis vascular access: what is the optimal vascular access type and timing of access creation in CKD and dialysis patients? Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2016;11:1487–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Lok CE, Huber TS, Lee T, Shenoy S, Yevzlin AS, Abreo K, et al. KDOQI clinical practice guideline for vascular access: 2019 update. Am J Kidney Dis. 2020;75:S1–S164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Robinson BM, Akizawa T, Jager KJ, Kerr PG, Saran R, Pisoni RL. Factors affecting outcomes in patients reaching end-stage kidney disease worldwide: differences in access to renal replacement therapy, modality use, and haemodialysis practices. Lancet. 2016;388:294–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Kukita K, Ohira S, Amano I, Naito H, Azuma N, Ikeda K, et al. 2011 Update Japanese Society for Dialysis Therapy guidelines of vascular access construction and repair for chronic hemodialysis. Ther Apher Dial. 2015;19(Suppl 1):1–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Nakai S, Masakane I, Shigematsu T, Hamano T, Yamagata K, Watanabe Y, et al. An overview of regular dialysis treatment in Japan (as of 31 December 2007). Ther Apher Dial. 2009;13:457–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Allon M, Imrey PB, Cheung AK, Radeva M, Alpers CE, Beck GJ, et al. Relationships between clinical processes and arteriovenous fistula cannulation and maturation: a multicenter prospective cohort study. Am J Kidney Dis. 2018;71:677–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Wu LC, Lin MY, Hsieh CC, Chiu HC, Mau LW, Chiu YW, et al. Planned creation of vascular access saves medical expenses for incident dialysis patients. Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2009;25:521–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Rayner HC, Pisoni RL, Gillespie BW, Goodkin DA, Akiba T, Akizawa T, et al. Creation, cannulation and survival of arteriovenous fistulae: data from the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study. Kidney Int. 2003;63:323–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Higuchi S, Nakaya I, Yoshikawa K, Chikamatsu Y, Sada KE, Yamamoto S, et al. Potential benefit associated with delaying initiation of hemodialysis in a Japanese cohort. Kidney Int Rep. 2017;2:594–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Chesser AM, Baker LR. Temporary vascular access for first dialysis is common, undesirable and usually avoidable. Clin Nephrol. 1999;51:228–32.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Matsuo S, Imai E, Horio M, Yasuda Y, Tomita K, Nitta K, et al. Revised equations for estimated GFR from serum creatinine in Japan. Am J Kidney Dis. 2009;53:982–92.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Pisoni RL, Zepel L, Port FK, Robinson BM. Trends in US vascular access use, patient preferences, and related practices: an update from the us DOPPS practice monitor with international comparisons. Am J Kidney Dis. 2015;65:905–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Ozeki T, Shimizu H, Fujita Y, Inaguma D, Maruyama S, Ohyama Y, et al. The type of vascular access and the incidence of mortality in Japanese dialysis patients. Intern Med. 2017;56:481–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Masakane I, Nakai S, Ogata S, Kimata N, Hanafusa N, Hamano T, et al. An overview of regular dialysis treatment in Japan (as of 31 December 2013). Ther Apher Dial. 2015;19:540–74.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Ravani P, Brunori G, Mandolfo S, Cancarini G, Imbasciati E, Marcelli D, et al. Cardiovascular comorbidity and late referral impact arteriovenous fistula survival: a prospective multicenter study. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2004;15:204–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Gonçalves EA, Andreoli MC, Watanabe R, Freitas MC, Pedrosa AC, Manfredi SR, et al. Effect of temporary catheter and late referral on hospitalization and mortality during the first year of hemodialysis treatment. Artif Organs. 2004;28:1043–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Yamagata K, Nakai S, Masakane I, Hanafusa N, Iseki K, Tsubakihara Y. Ideal timing and predialysis nephrology care duration for dialysis initiation: from analysis of Japanese dialysis initiation survey. Ther Apher Dial. 2012;16:54–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Lorenzo V, Martn M, Rufino M, Hernandez D, Torres A, Ayus JC. Predialysis nephrologic care and a functioning arteriovenous fistula at entry are associated with better survival in incident hemodialysis patients: an observational cohort study. Am J Kidney Dis. 2004;43:999–1007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Okawa T, Murakami M, Yamada R, Tanaka S, Mori K, Mori N. One-stage operation for superficialization of native radio-cephalic fistula in obese patients. J Vasc Access. 2019;20(Suppl 1):45–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    de Mutsert R, Grootendorst DC, Boeschoten EW, Brandts H, van Manen JG, Krediet RT, et al. Subjective global assessment of nutritional status is strongly associated with mortality in chronic dialysis patients. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009;89:787–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Ocak G, Rotmans JI, Vossen CY, Rosendaal FR, Krediet RT, Boeschoten EW, et al. Type of arteriovenous vascular access and association with patency and mortality. BMC Nephrol. 2013;14:79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Tangri N, Stevens LA, Griffith J, Tighiouart H, Djurdjev O, Naimark D, et al. A predictive model for progression of chronic kidney disease to kidney failure. JAMA. 2011;305:1553–9.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Nakayama M, Sato T, Sato H, Yamaguchi Y, Obara K, Kurihara I, et al. Different clinical outcomes for cardiovascular events and mortality in chronic kidney disease according to underlying renal disease: the Gonryo study. Clin Exp Nephrol. 2010;14:333–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Keith DS, Nichols GA, Gullion CM, Brown JB, Smith DH. Longitudinal follow-up and outcomes among a population with chronic kidney disease in a large managed care organization. Arch Intern Med. 2004;164:659–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Miyamoto M, Kurita N, Suemitsu K, Murakami M. Fistula and survival outcomes after fistula creation among predialysis chronic kidney disease stage 5 patients. Am J Nephrol. 2017;45:356–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Naumovic RT, Jovanovic DB, Djukanovic LJ. Temporary vascular catheters for hemodialysis: a 3-year prospective study. Int J Artif Organs. 2004;27:848–54.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work originated from the Iwate Prefectural Central Hospital.

Funding

This study was not supported by any grant or sponsor.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: IN, TG, and YN; performed the experiments: IN, TG, YN, KY, JO, YT, MM, SI, HI, and YM; analyzed the data: IN and TG; wrote the paper: IN, TG, and JS. The author(s) read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Izaya Nakaya.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The Ethics Committee of Iwate Prefectural Central Hospital approved this study, and it was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. We did not obtain written informed consent from the patients because the ethical guidelines for epidemiological research in Japan do not require informed consent for a cross-sectional study using only existing medical records.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1.

Patient characteristics stratified by the reasons for HD initiation with a temporary CVC.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nakaya, I., Goto, T., Nakamura, Y. et al. Temporary central venous catheter at hemodialysis initiation and reasons for use: a cross-sectional study. Ren Replace Ther 7, 2 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41100-021-00318-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Arteriovenous fistula
  • Chronic kidney disease
  • End-stage renal disease
  • Nephrology care
  • Renal replacement therapy
  • Vascular access