No abstract

Objective: To assess the recurrence of PD catheter migration after the introduction of a walnut ballast. Materials and Methods: Retrospective study from 1999 to 2014 of PD patients followed in Limousin. Were compared two groups: ballast group (patients who benefited from the establishment of stainless steel ballast at the intraperitoneal catheter extremity) with 26 patients and control group with 204 patients. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of an episode catheter’s migration after ballast’s establishment. Secondary objectives were (i) to determine the causal factors leading to the catheter weighting, (ii) to ensure the safety of the procedure on the following criteria: infectious complications, mechanicals complications, epurations criteria, and catheter’s survival. Results: More than one year after the implementation of the ballast, no recurrent migration was observed in 86.6% of cases. It wasn’t found an increased risk of infections (OR = 0.5, 95% CI [0.22, 1.13]) or mechanical complications (OR = 1.77- 95% CI [0.77, 4.05]) between the two groups. The adequation criteria were similar: KT / V total : 2.37 in the control group and 2.28 in the ballast group (p = 0.63). The survival of the ballast catheter was comparable among the two groups (p = 0.983). Three causal factors that led to the ballast were identified: automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) (OR = 0.38, 95% CI [0.16, 0.9]), the failure from the first use of the catheter (OR = 19.48, CI 95 % [7.67, 49.48]) and the incarceration of the omentum (OR = 15.84, 95% CI [5.81, 43.21]). Conclusion: The ballast used in these study appears to prevent recurrence of migration, without any impact in terms of infectious or mechanical complications, or on the dialysis criteria or on catheter’s survival. However this catheter does currently not have an EC authorization