Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34517829›Full record

Observational studyBMC nephrology2021

The best solution down the line: an observational study on taurolidine- versus citrate-based lock solutions for central venous catheters in hemodialysis patients.

Sonja van Roeden, Mathijs van Oevelen, Alferso C Abrahams, Friedo W Dekker, Joris I Rotmans, Sabine C A Meijvis, DUCATHO study group

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC nephrology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 39% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Sonja van RoedenDepartment of Nephrology and Hypertension, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands. s.vanroeden@gmail.com.
Mathijs van OevelenDepartment of Internal Medicine, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Alferso C AbrahamsDepartment of Nephrology and Hypertension, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Friedo W DekkerDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Joris I RotmansDepartment of Internal Medicine, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Sabine C A MeijvisDepartment of Nephrology and Hypertension, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
DUCATHO study group
Leiden University Medical Center · NLHeidelberg University · DEMaastricht University · NLErasmus MC · NLUniversity Medical Center Utrecht · NLGroene Hart Ziekenhuis · NLHaga Hospital · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionTo 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.

methodsIn 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).

resultsWe 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.

conclusionRemoval 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.

Indexed as

AnticoagulantsCentral Venous CathetersCitric AcidThiadiazinesAgedCatheter-Related InfectionsCatheters, IndwellingEquipment FailureFemaleHeparinHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesTaurineAnticoagulantsCitric AcidHeparinTaurinetaurolidineThiadiazinesCentral venous catheterHemodialysisLockLock solution

Identifiers

PMID34517829
PMCPMC8439004
OpenAlexW3201118726

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.