N/A Completed N=80 Randomized Treatment

Comparison of Tesio and LifeCath Twin Permanent Dialysis Catheters

Hemodialysis

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01022359 ↗

Enrolled (actual)

Serious AEs

8.8%

Results posted

Apr 2021

Primary outcomePrimary: Blood Flow Rate at First Use After Insertion — 277; 383 mL/min

Summary

This study aims to compare two available types of central venous haemodialysis catheters (lines) - CVCs, and will examine how easy they are to insert, complications, blood flow on dialysis over time, line loss, line clotting and infective events. It will examine whether the LifeCath type of CVC can deliver high blood flow rates from first use after insertion and equivalent function and complication rate to the Tesio type of CVC that is in use in our centre already. Complications relating to dialysis access make up 30% of admissions for haemodialysis patients and so this is a study that could benefit patients and their care providers.

Outcome Measures

Outcome	Result	p-value
PRIMARY Blood Flow Rate at First Use After Insertion	277; 383	—
SECONDARY Achievement of Flow Rates>=450ml/Min at Dialysis Session	361; 379	—
SECONDARY Line Retention (Either/Both Lumens)	—	—
SECONDARY Infective Episodes (Catheter & Non-catheter Related)	—	—
SECONDARY Catheter Dysfunction Requiring Use of Thrombolytic Agents	0; 6	—
SECONDARY Complications at Catheter Insertion	0; 0	—
SECONDARY Recirculation Rates	—	—

Eligibility Criteria

Inclusion Criteria

Age >=18 years old
No history of prior central venous catheter insertion
Medically fit for procedure (able to lie flat, no haemodynamic instability)
No active infection (recent positive blood cultures, clinical signs of infection, CRP>100)
Able to give informed consent
Expected to survive more than 12 months after catheter insertion

Exclusion Criteria

As above

View full record on ClinicalTrials.gov →

Data sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01022359). Outcome figures and adverse-event rates are extracted automatically from the registry's posted results and are provided for clinician reference, not as a substitute for the primary publication. Informational only — not medical advice.