Risk of vascular access complications with frequent hemodialysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Suri RS
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3582201 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Vascular access complications are a major cause of morbidity in patients undergoing hemodialysis, and determining how the risks of different complications vary over the life of an access may benefit the design of prevention strategies. We used data from the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS) to assess the temporal profiles of risks for infectious and noninfectious complications of fistulas, grafts, and tunneled catheters in incident hemodialysis patients. We used longitudinal data to model time from access placement or successful treatment of a previous complication to subsequent complication and considered multiple accesses per patient and repeated access complications using baseline and time-varying covariates to obtain adjusted estimates. Of the 7769 incident patients identified, 7140 received at least one permanent access. During a median follow-up of 14 months (interquartile range, 7-22 months), 10,452 noninfectious and 1131 infectious events (including 551 hospitalizations for sepsis) occurred in 112,085 patient-months. The hazards for both complication types declined over time in all access types: They were 5-10 times greater in the first 3-6 months than in later periods after access placement or a remedial access-related procedure. The hazards declined more quickly with fistulas than with grafts and catheters (P<0.001; Weibull regression). These data indicate that risks for noninfectious and infectious complications of the hemodialysis access decline over time with all access types and suggest that prevention strategies should target the first 6 months after access placement or a remedial access-related procedure.
| S-EPMC3785277 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Central venous catheters (CVC) increase risks associated with hemodialysis (HD), but may be necessary until an arteriovenous fistula (AVF) or graft (AVG) is achieved. The impact of vascular imaging on achievement of working AVF and AVG has not been firmly established. METHODS:Retrospective cohort of patients initiating HD with CVC in 2010-2011, classified by exposure to venography or Doppler vein mapping, and followed through December 31, 2012. Standard and time-dependent Cox models were used to determine hazard ratios (HRs) of death, working AVF, and any AVF or AVG. Logistic regression was used to assess the association of preoperative imaging with successful AVF or AVG among 18,883 individuals who had surgery. Models were adjusted for clinical and demographic factors. FINDINGS:Among 33,918 patients followed for a median of 404 days, 39.1% had imaging and 55.7% had surgery. Working AVF or AVG were achieved in 40.6%; 46.2% died. Compared to nonimaged patients, imaged patients were more likely to achieve working AVF (HR?=?1.45 [95% confidence interval [CI] 1.36, 1.55], P?<?0.001]), any AVF or AVG (HR?=?1.63 [1.58, 1.69], P?>?0.001), and less likely to die (HR?=?0.88 [0.83-0.94], P?<?0.001). Among patients who had surgery, the odds ratio for any successful AVF or AVG was 1.09 (1.02-1.16, P?=?0.008). DISCUSSION:Fewer than half of patients who initiated HD with a CVC had vascular imaging. Imaged patients were more likely to have vascular surgery and had increased achievement of working AV fistulas and grafts. Outcomes of surgery were similar in patients who did and did not have imaging.
| S-EPMC5438785 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Most arteriovenous grafts fail due to irreversible thrombosis, and most clotted grafts have an underlying stenotic lesion. These observations raise the plausible hypothesis that early detection of graft stenosis with preemptive angioplasty will reduce the likelihood of graft thrombosis. A number of noninvasive methods can be used to detect hemodynamically significant graft stenosis with a high positive predictive value. These tests include clinical monitoring, as well as surveillance by static dialysis venous pressures, flow monitoring, or duplex ultrasound. However, these surveillance tests have a much lower positive predictive value for graft thrombosis in the absence of preemptive angioplasty. In other words, none of the currently available surveillance tests can reliably distinguish between stenosed grafts destined to clot, and those that will remain patent without intervention. As a consequence, any program of graft surveillance necessarily results in a substantial proportion of unnecessary angioplasties. Moreover, a substantial proportion of grafts thrombose despite a normal antecedent surveillance test. Numerous observational studies have found an impressive reduction of graft thrombosis after implementation of a stenosis surveillance program. In contrast, 5 of 6 randomized clinical trials failed to show a reduction of graft thrombosis in patients undergoing graft surveillance, as compared with those receiving only clinical monitoring. The lack of benefit of surveillance is largely attributable to the rapid recurrence of stenosis after angioplasty. Thus, routine surveillance for graft stenosis, with preemptive angioplasty, cannot be recommended for reduction of graft thrombosis. Future research should be directed at pharmacologic interventions to prevent graft stenosis.
| S-EPMC4017945 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The arteriovenous fistula has been used for more than 50 years to provide vascular access for patients undergoing hemodialysis. More than 1.5 million patients worldwide have end stage renal disease and this population will continue to grow. The arteriovenous fistula is the preferred vascular access for patients, but its patency rate at 1 year is only 60%. The majority of arteriovenous fistulas fail because of intimal hyperplasia. In recent years, there have been many studies investigating the molecular mechanisms responsible for intimal hyperplasia and subsequent thrombosis. These studies have identified common pathways including inflammation, uremia, hypoxia, sheer stress, and increased thrombogenicity. These cellular mechanisms lead to increased proliferation, migration, and eventually stenosis. These pathways work synergistically through shared molecular messengers. In this review, we will examine the literature concerning the molecular basis of hemodialysis vascular access malfunction.
| S-EPMC4734360 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Blood vessel rupture is a major complication associated with vascular access intervention therapy (VAIVT). However, information regarding the risk factors for ruptures related to VAIVT is limited. The purpose of this study was to investigate the risk factors for rupture during VAIVT. This was a single-center, retrospective observational study. Demographic, clinical, anatomical, and VAIVT procedure variables were reviewed and analyzed using multivariate logistic regression. The 211 patients included in the study underwent 628 VAIVT procedures from November 2019 to December 2021, and 20 blood vessel ruptures occurred. Patients with ruptures had significantly lower BMI (p = 0.043), shorter access vintage(p = 0.017), underwent VAIVT for the first time (p = 0.006), and had lower blood flow quantity (p = 0.005), lower brachial artery flow volume (p = 0.018), and higher resistance index (p = 0.011). The multivariate logistic regression revealed that receiving VAIVT for the first time (OR 5.95, 95%CI 1.01-34.84; p = 0.048) and high resistance index (OR 1.86, 95%CI 1.01-3.16; p = 0.02) were significantly associated with a high risk for rupture. Furthermore, receiver operating characteristic curve analysis to assess the sensitivity-specificity profiles of the resistance index for ruptures showed that the optimal threshold was 0.70 (sensitivity/specificity, 0.69/0.70). Heightened surveillance during vascular access intervention therapy is warranted, especially in patients undergoing VAIVT for the first time or patients with a high resistance index (> 0.70).
| S-EPMC10065258 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES:People receiving hemodialysis to treat kidney failure need a vascular access (a fistula, a graft, or a central venous catheter) to connect to the blood purification machine. Higher rates of access complications are considered the mechanism responsible for the excess mortality observed among catheter or graft users versus fistula users. We tested this hypothesis using mediation analysis. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS:We studied incident patients who started hemodialysis therapy from North America, Europe, and Australasia (the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study; 1996-2011). We evaluated the association between access type and time to noninfectious (e.g., thrombosis) and infectious complications of the access (mediator model) and the relationship between access type and time-dependent access complications with 6-month mortality from the creation of the first permanent access (outcome model). In mediation analysis, we formally tested whether access complications explain the association between access type and mortality. RESULTS:Of the 6119 adults that we studied (mean age =64 [SD=15] years old; 58% men; 47% patients with diabetes), 50% had a permanent catheter for vascular access, 37% had a fistula, and 13% had a graft. During the 6-month study follow-up, 2084 participants (34%) developed a noninfectious complication of the access, 542 (8.9%) developed an infectious complication, and 526 (8.6%) died. Access type predicted the occurrence of access complications; both access type and complications predicted mortality. The associations between access type and mortality were nearly identical in models excluding and including access complications (hazard ratio, 2.00; 95% confidence interval, 1.55 to 2.58 versus hazard ratio, 2.01; 95% confidence interval, 1.56 to 2.59 for catheter versus fistula, respectively). In mediation analysis, higher mortality with catheters or grafts versus fistulas was not the result of increased rates of access complications. CONCLUSIONS:Hemodialysis access complications do not seem to explain the association between access type and mortality. Clinical trials are needed to clarify whether these associations are causal or reflect confounding by underlying disease severity.
| S-EPMC5460718 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Rationale & objectiveThe risks of major bleeding, thrombosis, and cardiovascular events are elevated in patients receiving maintenance hemodialysis (HD). Our objective was to compare the risk of these outcomes in HD according to the permanent vascular access type.Study designObservational cohort study.Setting & participantsUsing data from the United States Renal Data System (2010-2015), we included patients with kidney failure who were greater than 18 years, had Medicare as the primary payer, were not using an oral anticoagulant, and were newly using an arteriovenous (AV) access for HD.ExposureAV graft (AVG) or AV fistula (AVF).OutcomesMajor bleeding, venous thromboembolism, ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction, cardiovascular death, and critical limb ischemia.Analytical approachComparing 17,763 AVG and 60,329 AVF users, we estimated the 3-year incidence rates and incidence rate ratios (IRRs) of each outcome using Poisson regression. IRRs were adjusted for sociodemographic and clinical covariates.ResultsThe use of an AVG, compared with that of an AVF, was associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (10.8 vs 5.3 events per 100 person-years; adjusted IRR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.63-1.85) but not with the risk of major bleeding (IRR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.93-1.17). The use of an AVG was also potentially associated with a slightly increased risk of cardiovascular death (IRR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.01-1.16).LimitationsThis analysis focused on patients with a functioning AV access; adverse events that may occur during access maturation should also be considered when selecting a vascular access.ConclusionsThe use of an AVG, relative to an AVF, in HD is associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism. Given recent guidelines emphasizing selection of the "right access" for the "right patient," the results of this study should potentially be considered as one additional factor when selecting the optimal access for HD.
| S-EPMC9189779 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and objectivesMedicare reimbursement policy encourages frequent provider visits to patients with ESRD undergoing hemodialysis. This study sought to determine whether more frequent face-to-face provider (physician and advanced practitioner) visits lead to more procedures and therapeutic interventions aimed at preserving arteriovenous fistulas and grafts, improved vascular access outcomes, and fewer related hospitalizations.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsMultivariable regression was used to evaluate the association between provider (physician and advanced practitioner) visit frequency and interventions aimed at preserving vascular access, vascular access survival, hospitalization for vascular access infection, and outpatient antibiotic use in a cohort of 63,488 Medicare beneficiaries receiving hemodialysis in the United States. Medicare claims were used to identify the type of vascular access used, access-related events, and vascular access failure.ResultsOne additional provider (physician and advanced practitioner) visit per month was associated with a 13% higher odds of receiving an intervention to preserve vascular access (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 12% to 14%) but was not associated with vascular access survival (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.03). One additional provider visit was associated with a 9% (95% CI, 5% to 14%) lower odds of hospitalization for vascular access infection and a corresponding 9% (95% CI, 5% to 14%) higher odds of outpatient intravenous antibiotic administration. However, the associated changes in absolute probabilities of hospitalization and antibiotic administration were small.ConclusionsMore frequent face-to-face provider (physician and advanced practitioner) visits were associated with more procedures and therapeutic interventions aimed at preserving vascular accesses, but not with prolonged vascular access survival and only a small decrease in hospitalization for vascular access.
| S-EPMC4317740 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTo describe vascular access (VA)-related decision-making from the patient perspective, in patients who have already chosen hemodialysis as their renal replacement modality, and identify areas where physicians can improve this experience.MethodsIn-person, semi-structured interviews with 15 patients with end-stage kidney disease were systematically analyzed by two independent researchers using thematic analysis. Interviews were conducted until systematic analysis revealed no new themes.ResultsPatients had mean age 57 (range 22-85), with seven males and diverse racial/ethnic/marital status. All (15/15) patients viewed VA as "intertwined and interrelated" with dialysis, prioritized the dialysis, described the VA merely as the "hookup" to life-preserving dialysis and gave it minimal consideration. Three themes were identified: consolidation of dialysis and VA, reliance on supportive advisors and communication with physicians. Although 14/15 patients described processes common to medical decision-making, including information seeking, learning from the experiences of others, and weighing risks and benefits, they did not apply these processes specifically to VA. While all participants took ownership of the VA decision, they lacked clear understanding about the different types of VA and their consequences. Most patients (14/15) depended on family and friends for reinforcement, motivation and advice. Patients all described physician characteristics they associated with trustworthiness, the most common being listening and explaining, demonstrating empathy and making an effort to meet the patient's individual needs. Perceived arrogance, unavailability and lack of expertise represented untrustworthiness. The majority (14/15) accepted VA recommendations from physicians they found trustworthy and authoritative.ConclusionsThe study participants were minimally engaged in VA decision-making. Educational aids and shared decision-making tools are needed to empower patients to make better-informed, self-efficacious VA decisions.
| S-EPMC8216296 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and objectivesFistulas, the preferred form of hemodialysis access, are difficult to establish and maintain. We examined the effect of a multidisciplinary vascular access team, including nurses, surgeons, and radiologists, on the probability of using a fistula catheter-free, and rates of access-related procedures in incident patients receiving hemodialysis.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsWe examined vascular access outcomes in the first year of hemodialysis treatment before (2004-2005, preteam period) and after the implementation of an access team (2006-2008, early-team period; 2009-2011, late-team period) in the Calgary Health Region, Canada. We used logistic regression to study the probability of fistula creation and the probability of catheter-free fistula use, and negative binomial regression to study access-related procedure rates.ResultsWe included 609 adults (mean age, 65 [±15] years; 61% men; 54% with diabetes). By the end of the first year of hemodialysis, 102 participants received a fistula in the preteam period (70%), 196 (78%) in the early-team period (odds ratios versus preteam, 1.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.92 to 2.35), and 139 (66%) in the late-team period (0.85; 0.54 to 1.35). Access team implementation did not affect the probability of catheter-free use of the fistula (odds ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.52 to 1.43, for the early; and 0.89; 0.52 to 1.53, for the late team versus preteam period). Participants underwent an average of 4-5 total access-related procedures during the first year of hemodialysis, with higher rates in women and in people with comorbidities. Catheter-related procedure rates were similar before and after team implementation; relative to the preteam period, fistula-related procedure rates were 40% (20%-60%) and 30% (10%-50%) higher in the early-team and late-team periods, respectively.ConclusionIntroduction of a multidisciplinary access team did not increase the probability of catheter-free fistula use, but resulted in higher rates of fistula-related procedures.
| S-EPMC5718268 | biostudies-literature