Dataset Information

Arteriovenous Fistula Versus Graft Access Strategy in Older Adults Receiving Hemodialysis: A Pilot Randomized Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

It is unclear whether surgical placement of an arteriovenous (AV) fistula (AVF) confers substantial clinical benefits over an AV graft (AVG) in older adults with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). We report vascular access outcomes of a pilot clinical trial.

Study design

Pilot randomized parallel-group open-label trial.

Setting & participants

Patients 65 years and older with ESKD and no prior AV access receiving maintenance hemodialysis through a tunneled central venous catheter referred for AV access placement by their treating nephrologist.

Intervention

Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to surgical placement of an AVG or AVF.

Outcomes

Index AV access primary failure, successful cannulation, adjuvant interventions and infections.

Results

Of 122 older adults receiving hemodialysis and no prior AV access surgery, 24% died before (n = 18) or were too sick for (n = 11) referral for a permanent AV access. Of 46 eligible patients, 36 (78%) consented and were randomly assigned to AVG (n = 18) and AVF (n = 18) placement, of whom 13 (72%) and 16 (89%) underwent index AV access surgical placement, respectively. At a median follow-up of 321.0 days, primary AV access failure was noted in 31% in each group. The proportion of patients with successful cannulation was 62% (8 of 13) in the AVG and 50% (8 of 16) in the AVF group; median times to successful cannulation were 75.0 and 113.5 days, respectively. Endovascular procedures were recorded in 38% and 44%, and surgical reinterventions, in 23% and 25%, respectively. AV access infection was seen in 3 (23%) and 2 (13%) patients, respectively.

Limitations

Small sample size precludes statistical inference.

Conclusions

Almost one-quarter of older adults with incident ESKD and a central venous catheter as primary access were not referred for AV access placement due to medical reasons. Based on these limited results, there is little reason to favor either an AVF or AVG in this population until results from a larger randomized clinical trial become available.

Funding

Government funding to an author (Dr Murea is supported by National Institutes of Health∖National Institute on Aging grant 1R03 AG060178-01).

Trial registration

NCT03545113.

SUBMITTER: Robinson T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8039401 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

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.

Project description:Rationale & objectiveThe current clinical guidelines for vascular access do not have specific recommendations for older hemodialysis patients. Our study aimed to determine the association of age with arteriovenous fistula (AVF) placement, maturation, and primary and secondary patency loss among older hemodialysis recipients.Study designRetrospective cohort study.Setting & participantsA US national cohort of incident hemodialysis patients 67 years or older (N = 43,851) assembled from the US Renal Data System.ExposureAge at dialysis initiation.OutcomesAVF placement, maturation, primary patency loss, and abandonment.Analytical approachCause-specific and subdistribution proportional hazards models were used to examine the association of age and AVF outcomes, with kidney transplantation, peritoneal dialysis, and death treated as competing events. Age cutoff was identified by restricted cubic splines. We compared crude and inverse probability-weighted cumulative incidence functions using Gray's test.ResultsAs compared with those aged 67-<77 years, patients 77 years or older had significantly lower probabilities of AVF placement (adjusted cause-specific HR [cHR], 0.96 [95% CI, 0.92-0.99]; adjusted subdistribution HR [sHR], 0.92 [95% CI, 0.89-0.95]; Gray's test P < 0.001) and maturation (adjusted cHR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.91-0.99]; adjusted sHR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.90-0.97]; P < 0.001). However, age was not associated with AVF primary (adjusted cHR, 1.05 [95% CI, 1.00-1.11]; adjusted sHR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.99-1.09]; P = 0.09) or secondary (adjusted cHR, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.94-1.20]; adjusted sHR, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.93-1.18]; P = 0.4) patency loss.LimitationsReliance on administrative claims to ascertain AVF outcomes.ConclusionsThe likelihood of AVF maturation is an important consideration for vascular access planning. Age alone should not be the basis for excluding older dialysis patients from AVF creation because maintenance of fistula patency was not reduced with older age despite a modest reduction in fistula maturation.

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.