Effects of prolonged ethanol lock exposure to carbothane- and silicone-based hemodialysis catheters: a 26-week study
J Vasc Access 2015; 16(5): 367 - 371
Article Type: ORIGINAL ARTICLE
DOI:10.5301/jva.5000397
Authors
Daniel L. Landry, Randa A. Jaber, Nandheesha Hanumanthappa, George S. Lipkowitz, Michael H. O’Shea, Harry Bermudez, Adam P. Hathorne, Gregory L. BradenAbstract
Antibiotic locks in catheter-dependent chronic hemodialysis patients reduce the rate of catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSIs), but may be associated with the development of resistant bacteria. Ethanol-based catheter locks may provide a better alternative; however, there are limited data on the long-term integrity of dialysis catheters exposed to ethanol.
We performed in vitro testing of two types of hemodialysis catheters—silicone (SLC) and carbothane (CBT) based—with a 70% ethanol lock (EL) versus heparin lock (HL) for 26 weeks. Lock solutions were changed thrice weekly to mimic a conventional hemodialysis schedule. We tested mechanical properties of the catheters at 0, 13 and 26 weeks by examining stress/strain relationships (SS400%) and modulus of elasticity (ME). Electron microscopy was performed to examine catheter ultrastructure at 0 and 26 weeks.
Catheter integrity for HL versus EL in SLC (SS400%: 4.5 vs. 4.5 MPa, p = NS; ME: 4.6 vs. 4.7 MPa, p = NS) or CBT-based catheters (SS400%: 7.6 vs. 8.9 MPa, p = NS; ME: 9.6 vs. 12.2 MPa, p = NS) were all similar at 13 and 26 weeks. Scanning electron microscopy revealed no structural changes in the central and luminal wall internal surfaces of EL- versus HL-treated catheters.
There were no significant differences in catheter integrity between SLC or CBT catheters exposed to a 70% EL for 26 weeks. Given its low cost, potential to avoid antibiotic resistance and structural integrity after 6 months of high-dose ethanol, ELs should be studied prospectively against antibiotic locks to assess the efficacy and safety in hemodialysis patients.
Article History
- • Accepted on 14/03/2015
- • Available online on 29/05/2015
- • Published in print on 29/09/2015
Disclosures
This article is available as full text PDF.
Authors
- Landry, Daniel L. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 1, 2, * Corresponding Author (daniel.landry@bhs.org)
- Jaber, Randa A. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 1, 2
- Hanumanthappa, Nandheesha [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 1, 2
- Lipkowitz, George S. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 1, 2
- O’Shea, Michael H. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 1, 2
- Bermudez, Harry [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 3
- Hathorne, Adam P. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 3
- Braden, Gregory L. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 1, 2
Affiliations
- Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, MA - USA
- Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA - USA
- University of Massachusetts Polymer Science & Engineering, Amherst, MA - USA
Article usage statistics
The blue line displays unique views in the time frame indicated.
The yellow line displays unique downloads.
Views and downloads are counted only once per session.