Dataset Information

One-stage vs. two-stage brachio-basilic arteriovenous fistula for dialysis access: a systematic review and a meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: A brachiobasilic arteriovenous fistula (BB-AVF) can provide access for haemodialysis in patients who are not eligible for a more superficial fistula. However, it is unclear whether one- or two-stage BB-AVF is the best option for patients.To systematically assess the difference between both procedures in terms of access maturation, patency and postoperative complications.Online search for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies that compared the one-stage versus the two-stage technique for creating a BB-AVF.Eight studies were included (849 patients with 859 fistulas), 366 created using a one-stage technique, while 493 in a two-stage approach. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in the rate of successful maturation (Pooled risk ratio = 0.95 [0.82, 1.11], P = 0.53). Similarly, the incidence of postoperative haematoma (Pooled risk ratio = 0.73 [0.34, 1.58], P = 0.43), wound infection (Pooled risk ratio = 0.77 [0.35, 1.68], P = 0.51) and steal syndrome (Pooled risk ratio = 0.65 [0.27, 1.53], P = 0.32) were statistically comparable.Although more studies seem to favour the two-stage BVT approach, evidence in the literature is not sufficient to draw a final conclusion as the difference between the one-stage and the two-stage approaches for creation of a BB-AVF is not statistically significant in terms of the overall maturation rate and postoperative complications. Patency rates (primary, assisted primary and secondary) were comparable in the majority of studies. Large randomised properly conducted trials with superior methodology and adequate sub-group analysis are needed before making a final recommendation.

SUBMITTER: Bashar K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4353636 | biostudies-literature | 2015

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

One-stage vs. two-stage brachio-basilic arteriovenous fistula for dialysis access: a systematic review and a meta-analysis.

Bashar Khalid K Healy Donagh A DA Elsheikh Sawsan S Browne Leonard D LD Walsh Michael T MT Clarke-Moloney Mary M Burke Paul E PE Kavanagh Eamon G EG Walsh Stewart R SR

PloS one 20150309 3

<h4>Introduction</h4>A brachiobasilic arteriovenous fistula (BB-AVF) can provide access for haemodialysis in patients who are not eligible for a more superficial fistula. However, it is unclear whether one- or two-stage BB-AVF is the best option for patients.<h4>Aim</h4>To systematically assess the difference between both procedures in terms of access maturation, patency and postoperative complications.<h4>Methods</h4>Online search for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studie ...[more]

PMID: 25751655

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceInitial hemodialysis access with arteriovenous fistula (AVF) is associated with superior clinical outcomes compared with arteriovenous graft (AVG) and should be the procedure of choice whenever possible. To address the national underuse of AVF in the United States, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid has established an AVF goal of 66% or greater in 2009.ObjectiveTo explore contemporary practice patterns and physician characteristics associated with high AVG use compared with AVF use.Design, setting, and participantsThis review of 100% Medicare Carrier claims between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2017, includes both inpatient and outpatient Medicare claims data. All patients undergoing initial permanent hemodialysis access placement with an AVF or AVG were included. All surgeons performing more than 10 hemodialysis access procedures during the study period were analyzed.ExposuresPlacement of an AVF or AVG for initial permanent hemodialysis access.Main outcomes and measuresA surgeon-level AVG (vs AVF) use rate was calculated for all included surgeons. Hierarchical logistic regression modeling was used to identify patient-level and surgeon-level factors associated with AVG use.ResultsA total of 85 320 patients (median age, 70 [range, 18-103] years; 47 370 men [55.5%]) underwent first-time hemodialysis access placement, of whom 66 489 (77.9%) had an AVF and 18 831 (22.1%) had an AVG. Among the 2397 surgeons who performed more than 10 procedures per year, the median surgeon level AVG use rate was 18.2% (range, 0.0%-96.4%). However, 498 surgeons (20.8%) had an AVG use rate greater than 34%. After accounting for patient characteristics, surgeon factors that were independently associated with AVG use included more than 30 years of clinical practice (vs 21-30 years; odds ratio, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.75-0.96]), metropolitan setting (odds ratio, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.02-1.54]), and vascular surgery specialty (vs general surgery; odds ratio, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.69-0.86]). Surgeons in the Northeast region had the lowest rate of AVG use (vs the South; odds ratio, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.73-0.96]). First-time hemodialysis access benchmarking reports for individual surgeons were created for potential distribution.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, one-fifth of surgeons had an AVG use rate above the recommended best practices guideline of 34%. Although some of these differences may be explained by patient referral practices, sharing benchmarked performance data with surgeons could be an actionable step in achieving more high-value care in hemodialysis access surgery.

Project description:BackgroundTreatment of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) with hemodialysis requires surgical creation of an arteriovenous (AV) vascular access-fistula (AVF) or graft (AVG)-to avoid (or limit) the use of a central venous catheter (CVC). AVFs have long been considered the first-line vascular access option, with AVGs as second best. Recent studies have suggested that, in older adults, AVGs may be a better strategy than AVFs. Lacking evidence from well-powered randomized clinical trials, integration of these results into clinical decision making is challenging. The main objective of the AV Access Study is to compare, between the two types of AV access, clinical outcomes that are important to patients, physicians, and policy makers.MethodsThis is a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial in adults ≥ 60 years old receiving chronic hemodialysis via a CVC. Eligible participants must have co-existing cardiovascular disease, peripheral arterial disease, and/or diabetes mellitus; and vascular anatomy suitable for placement of either type of AV access. Participants are randomized, in a 1:1 ratio, to a strategy of AVG or AVF creation. An estimated 262 participants will be recruited across 7 healthcare systems, with average follow-up of 2 years. Questionnaires will be administered at baseline and semi-annually. The primary outcome is the rate of CVC-free days per 100 patient-days. The primary safety outcome is the cumulative incidence of vascular access (CVC or AV access)-related severe infections-defined as access infections that lead to hospitalization or death. Secondary outcomes include access-related healthcare costs and patients' experiences with vascular access care between the two treatment groups.DiscussionIn the absence of studies using robust and unbiased research methodology to address vascular access care for hemodialysis patients, clinical decisions are limited to inferences from observational studies. The goal of the AV Access Study is to generate evidence to optimize vascular access care, based on objective, age-specific criteria, while incorporating goals of care and patient preference for vascular access type in clinical decision-making.Trial registrationThis study is being conducted in accordance with the tenets of the Helsinki Declaration, and has been approved by the central institutional review board (IRB) of Wake Forest University Health Sciences (approval number: 00069593) and local IRB of each participating clinical center; and was registered on Nov 27, 2020, at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04646226).

Project description:Current guidelines suggest that arteriovenous fistula (AVF) is associated with survival advantage over arteriovenous graft (AVG). However, AVFs often require months to become functional, increasing tunneled dialysis catheter (TDC) use, which can erode the benefit of an AVF. We sought to compare survival in patients with end-stage renal disease after creation of an AVF or AVG in patients starting hemodialysis (HD) with a TDC and to identify patient populations that may benefit from preferential use of AVG over AVF.Using U.S. Renal Data System databases, we identified incident HD patients in 2005 through 2008 and observed them through 2008. Initial access type and clinical variables including albumin levels were assessed using U.S. Renal Data System data collection forms. Attempts at AVF and AVG creation in patients who started HD through a TDC were identified by Current Procedural Terminology codes. We accounted for the effect of changes in access type by truncating follow-up when an additional AVF or AVG was performed. Survival curves were then constructed, and log-rank tests were used for pairwise survival comparisons, stratified by age. Multivariate analysis was performed with Cox proportional hazards regressions; variables were chosen using stepwise elimination. An interaction of access type and albumin level was detected, and Cox models using differing thresholds for albumin level were constructed. The primary outcome was survival.Among the 138,245 patients who started with a TDC and had complete records amenable for analysis, 22.8% underwent AVF creation (mean age ± standard deviation, 68.9 ± 12.5 years; 27.8% mortality at 1 year) and 7.6% underwent AVG placement (70.2 ± 12.0 years; 28.2% mortality) within 3 months of HD initiation; 69.6% remained with a TDC (63.2 ± 15.4 years; 33.8% mortality). In adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression, AVF creation is equivalent to AVG placement in terms of survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93-1.02; P = .349). AVG placement is superior to continued TDC use (HR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.48-1.61; P < .001). In patients older than 80 years with albumin levels >4.0 g/dL, AVF creation is associated with higher mortality hazard compared with AVG creation (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.04-1.43; P = .013).For patients who start HD through a TDC, placement of an AVF and AVG is associated with similar mortality hazard. Further study is necessary to determine the ideal access for patients in whom the survival advantage of an AVF over an AVG is uncertain.

Dataset Information

One-stage vs. two-stage brachio-basilic arteriovenous fistula for dialysis access: a systematic review and a meta-analysis.

Publications

One-stage vs. two-stage brachio-basilic arteriovenous fistula for dialysis access: a systematic review and a meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets