Dataset Information

The survival analysis of tunnel-cuffed central venous catheter versus arteriovenous hemodialysis access among elderly patients: A retrospective single center study.

ABSTRACT: Background:There is currently a controversy for the optimal vascular access option in the elderly, regarding their multiple comorbidities and life expectancies. Our study aimed to compare the survival of tunneled cuff venous catheter (CVC) and arteriovenous access (AV access) in elderly patients. Methods:A retrospective cohort study was performed by electronic medical record review. All hemodialysis patients aged 65 years and over who firstly initiated dialysis from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2016 at Siriraj hospital, Thailand, were included. The primary outcomes are to compare a 2-year period of survival between CVC and AV access in terms of abandonment, death, and combined outcome. Propensity score covariate and Charlson Comorbidity Score (CCI) were used for multivariable analysis adjustment. Results:A total of 359 patients were included; 216 (60.2%) patients had initiated hemodialysis via CVC while the rest used AV access. The patients' average ages were 76.7 ± 7.0 and 74.0 ± 5.8 years (p-value<0.001) in the CVC and AV access group, respectively. The 2-year mortality rates of CVC and AV access groups were 24.1% and 15.4%, respectively (p-value = 0.038). Multivariable analyses showed that the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) of combined endpoints, i.e., vascular access abandonment and death, was statistically different only in the CCI-adjusted model (aHR = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.46-0.99). Mortality from infection cause was more common in the CVC group than the AV access group. Conclusion:CVC access maybe considers an alternative option for frail elderly patients. However, the patient selection is a crucial issue, given higher infection-related mortality in patients using CVC.

SUBMITTER: Raksasuk S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7585836 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The survival analysis of tunnel-cuffed central venous catheter versus arteriovenous hemodialysis access among elderly patients: A retrospective single center study.

Raksasuk Sukit S Chaisathaphol Thanet T Kositamongkol Chayanis C Chokvanich Wittawat W Pumuthaivirat Pratya P Srithongkul Thatsaphan T

Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) 20201021

<h4>Background</h4>There is currently a controversy for the optimal vascular access option in the elderly, regarding their multiple comorbidities and life expectancies. Our study aimed to compare the survival of tunneled cuff venous catheter (CVC) and arteriovenous access (AV access) in elderly patients.<h4>Methods</h4>A retrospective cohort study was performed by electronic medical record review. All hemodialysis patients aged 65 years and over who firstly initiated dialysis from January 1, 201 ...[more]

PMID: 33133589

Similar Datasets

Project description:RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE:National vascular access guidelines recommend placement of arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs) over grafts (AVGs) in hemodialysis patients, but have not been comprehensively assessed in the elderly. We evaluated clinically relevant vascular access outcomes in elderly patients receiving an AVF or AVG after hemodialysis therapy initiation. STUDY DESIGN:Retrospective cohort study using national administrative data. SETTINGS & PARTCIPANTS:Claims data from the US Renal Data System of 9,458 US patients 67 years and older who initiated hemodialysis therapy from July 1, 2010, to June 30, 2011, with a catheter and received an AVF (n=7,433) or AVG (n=2,025) within the ensuing 6 months. PREDICTOR:Arteriovenous access subtype, AVF or AVG. OUTCOMES:Successful use of vascular access, interventions to make vascular access functional, duration of catheter dependence before successful use of vascular access, frequency of interventions, and abandonment after successful use of vascular access. ANALYTICAL APPROACH:Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to compare the need for intervention before successful use of AVFs and AVGs, and negative bionomial regression was used to calculate the frequency of intervention after successful use of vascular access. RESULTS:Unsuccessful use of vascular access within 6 months of creation was higher for AVFs versus AVGs (51% vs 45%; adjusted HR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.73-1.99). Interventions to make vascular access functional were greater in AVFs versus AVGs (42% vs 23%; OR, 2.66; 95% CI, 2.26-3.12). AVFs had a lower 1-year abandonment rate after successful use compared with AVGs (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.62-0.83) and required one-fourth fewer interventions after successful use (relative risk, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.69-0.81). Patients receiving an AVF had substantially longer catheter dependence before successful use than those receiving an AVG (median time, 3 vs 1 month; P<0.001). LIMITATIONS:Residual confounding due to vascular access choice, restriction to an elderly population, and 1-year follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS:In elderly hemodialysis patients initiating hemodialysis therapy with a catheter, the optimal vascular access selection depends on tradeoffs between shorter catheter dependence and less frequent interventions to make the vascular access (AVG) functional versus longer access patency and fewer interventions after successful use of the vascular access (AVF).

Project description:Background and objectivesCentral venous catheters have traditionally provided access for urgent hemodialysis, but are also sometimes advocated as an option for older or more comorbid patients. Adverse effects of this type of dialysis access include central venous stenosis, for which the risk factors and consequences are incompletely understood.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsWe conducted two studies within the same population cohort, comprising all patients starting hemodialysis in a single center from January 2006 to December 2013. First, patients were retrospectively analyzed for the presence of central venous stenosis; their access outcomes are described and survival compared with matched controls drawn from the same population. Second, a subset of patients with a history of catheter access within this cohort was analyzed to determine risk factors for central venous stenosis.ResultsAmong 2811 patients, central venous stenosis was diagnosed in 120 (4.3%), at a median dialysis vintage of 2.9 (interquartile range, 1.8-4.6) years. Compared with matched controls, patients with central venous stenosis had similar survival (median 5.1 versus 5.2 years; P=0.54). Among a subset of 500 patients, all with a history of catheter use, 34 (6.8%) developed central venous stenosis, at a rate of 2.2 per 100 patient-years. The incidence of central venous stenosis was higher with larger number of previous catheters (relative risk [RR], 2.2; 95% confidence interval [95% CI]. 1.6 to 2.9), pacemaker insertion (RR, 3.9; 95% CI, 1.7 to 8.9), and was lower with older age (RR, 0.7 per decade; 95% CI, 0.6 to 0.8). In a Cox proportional hazards model, the catheter number, pacemaker, and younger age at dialysis initiation were all significant independent risk factors for central venous stenosis.ConclusionsCentral venous stenosis occurred in a minority of patients on hemodialysis, and was associated with compromised future access, but unchanged survival. Among patients with a history of catheter use, risk related to both the number of catheters and the total catheter duration, although nondialysis factors such as pacemakers were also important. Central venous stenosis risk was lower in older patients, supporting the selective use of tunneled catheters in this group.

Dataset Information

The survival analysis of tunnel-cuffed central venous catheter versus arteriovenous hemodialysis access among elderly patients: A retrospective single center study.

Publications

The survival analysis of tunnel-cuffed central venous catheter versus arteriovenous hemodialysis access among elderly patients: A retrospective single center study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets