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: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.

Project description:Rationale & objectiveComparisons of outcomes between in-center hemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) are confounded by selection bias because PD patients are typically younger and healthier and may have received longer predialysis care. We compared first-year survival between what we hypothesized were clinically equivalent groups; namely, patients who initiate maintenance HD using an arteriovenous fistula (AVF) and those selecting PD as their initial modality.Study designObservational, registry-based, retrospective cohort study.Setting & participantsUS Renal Data System data for 5 annual cohorts (2010-2014; n = 130,324) of incident HD with an AVF and incident PD patients.Exposures and predictorsExposure was more than 1 day receiving PD or more than 1 day receiving HD with an AVF. Time at risk for both cohorts was determined for 12 consecutive 30-day segments, censoring for transplantation, loss to follow-up, or end of time. Predictors included patient-level characteristics obtained from Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 2728 Form and other data sources.OutcomesPatient survival.Analytical approachUnadjusted and multivariable risk-adjusted HRs for death of HD versus PD patients, averaged over 2010 to 2014, were calculated.ResultsThe HD cohort's average unadjusted mortality rate was consistently higher than for the PD cohort. The HR of HD versus PD was 1.25 (95% CI, 1.20-1.30) in the unadjusted model and 0.84 (95% CI, 0.80-0.87) in the adjusted model. However, multivariable risk-adjusted analyses showed the HR of HD versus PD for the first 90 days was 1.06 (95% CI, 0.98-1.14), decreasing to 0.74 (95% CI, 0.68-0.80) in the 270- to 360-day period.LimitationsResidual confounding due to selection bias inherent in dialysis modality choice and the observational study design. Form 2728 provides baseline data at dialysis incidence alone, but not over time.ConclusionsUS patients receiving HD with an AVF appear to have a survival advantage over PD patients after 90 days of dialysis initiation after accounting for patient characteristics. These findings have implications in the choice of initial dialysis modality and vascular access for patients.

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