Are we building too many arteriovenous fistulas? A single-center experience

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Leal-Moreira, C.
Data de Publicação: 2017
Outros Autores: Teixeira, V., Bessa, L., Queirós, J., Silva, F., Cabrita, A.
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
Texto Completo: http://hdl.handle.net/10400.16/2246
Resumo: Introduction: Arteriovenous fistula has been associated with improved morbimortality in hemodialysis patients. This has resulted in the “fistula First, catheter last” initiative. Nonetheless, the survival benefit of arteriovenous fistula has been questioned. Methods: We conducted a retrospective observational study of all patients with non-end stage renal disease referred for first vascular access building between January 2014 and December 2015 in our hospital center. Our main goal was to evaluate the clinical impact and burden of building fistula in predialysis patients. Results: During this period, of 178 first arteriovenous accesses placed, 87 patients remained in predialysis and 91 patients started a chronic hemodialysis program. Median follow-up time by a nephrologist was 3.9 (2.5, 9.7) years. The mean age was 65.8±14.7 years, with 50.6% (n=90) of male patients. A higher rate of thrombosis in the predialysis group (26% vs 13%, p=0.037) was observed, but vascular access survival did not differ significantly (55% vs 67%, p=0.12). Mean vascular access placing was higher in the predialysis group (1.4±0.7 vs 1.2±0.4, p=0.006) and less interventions were requested (0.2±0.5 vs 0.3±0.6, p=0.10). Median time from vascular access placement to hemodialysis start was 22 (13, 41) months. At hemodialysis initiation, 10 (10.9%) patients used a central venous catheter; 80 (87.9%) patients an arteriovenous fistula, and one patient a graft. A total of 227 vascular accesses were built; 121 (53.3%) in predialysis vs 106 (46.7%) in incident hemodialysis patients. In a multivariate model, the presence of a functional arteriovenous fistula at hemodialysis start was only associated with a trend to survival benefit (HR 0.38, 95% CI 0.14-1.00, p=0.05). Conclusions: Our results stress the need for an individual approach and for future tools to assess the risk of death and progression to end-stage renal disease, therefore helping reduce the number of unutilized vascular accesses and rising cost of interventions.
id RCAP_5c2b95c4cc88db6790ec5d45baa97eaf
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio.chporto.pt:10400.16/2246
network_acronym_str RCAP
network_name_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository_id_str 7160
spelling Are we building too many arteriovenous fistulas? A single-center experienceArteriovenous FistulaCentral Venous CatheterMorbiditySurvivalIntroduction: Arteriovenous fistula has been associated with improved morbimortality in hemodialysis patients. This has resulted in the “fistula First, catheter last” initiative. Nonetheless, the survival benefit of arteriovenous fistula has been questioned. Methods: We conducted a retrospective observational study of all patients with non-end stage renal disease referred for first vascular access building between January 2014 and December 2015 in our hospital center. Our main goal was to evaluate the clinical impact and burden of building fistula in predialysis patients. Results: During this period, of 178 first arteriovenous accesses placed, 87 patients remained in predialysis and 91 patients started a chronic hemodialysis program. Median follow-up time by a nephrologist was 3.9 (2.5, 9.7) years. The mean age was 65.8±14.7 years, with 50.6% (n=90) of male patients. A higher rate of thrombosis in the predialysis group (26% vs 13%, p=0.037) was observed, but vascular access survival did not differ significantly (55% vs 67%, p=0.12). Mean vascular access placing was higher in the predialysis group (1.4±0.7 vs 1.2±0.4, p=0.006) and less interventions were requested (0.2±0.5 vs 0.3±0.6, p=0.10). Median time from vascular access placement to hemodialysis start was 22 (13, 41) months. At hemodialysis initiation, 10 (10.9%) patients used a central venous catheter; 80 (87.9%) patients an arteriovenous fistula, and one patient a graft. A total of 227 vascular accesses were built; 121 (53.3%) in predialysis vs 106 (46.7%) in incident hemodialysis patients. In a multivariate model, the presence of a functional arteriovenous fistula at hemodialysis start was only associated with a trend to survival benefit (HR 0.38, 95% CI 0.14-1.00, p=0.05). Conclusions: Our results stress the need for an individual approach and for future tools to assess the risk of death and progression to end-stage renal disease, therefore helping reduce the number of unutilized vascular accesses and rising cost of interventions.Sociedade Portuguesa de NefrologiaRepositório Científico do Centro Hospitalar Universitário de Santo AntónioLeal-Moreira, C.Teixeira, V.Bessa, L.Queirós, J.Silva, F.Cabrita, A.2018-10-30T12:38:30Z20172017-01-01T00:00:00Zinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/10400.16/2246engPort J Nephrol Hypert 2017; 31(4): 274-2802183-1289info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAP2023-10-20T10:59:44Zoai:repositorio.chporto.pt:10400.16/2246Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-19T20:38:28.128309Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Are we building too many arteriovenous fistulas? A single-center experience
title Are we building too many arteriovenous fistulas? A single-center experience
spellingShingle Are we building too many arteriovenous fistulas? A single-center experience
Leal-Moreira, C.
Arteriovenous Fistula
Central Venous Catheter
Morbidity
Survival
title_short Are we building too many arteriovenous fistulas? A single-center experience
title_full Are we building too many arteriovenous fistulas? A single-center experience
title_fullStr Are we building too many arteriovenous fistulas? A single-center experience
title_full_unstemmed Are we building too many arteriovenous fistulas? A single-center experience
title_sort Are we building too many arteriovenous fistulas? A single-center experience
author Leal-Moreira, C.
author_facet Leal-Moreira, C.
Teixeira, V.
Bessa, L.
Queirós, J.
Silva, F.
Cabrita, A.
author_role author
author2 Teixeira, V.
Bessa, L.
Queirós, J.
Silva, F.
Cabrita, A.
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv Repositório Científico do Centro Hospitalar Universitário de Santo António
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Leal-Moreira, C.
Teixeira, V.
Bessa, L.
Queirós, J.
Silva, F.
Cabrita, A.
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Arteriovenous Fistula
Central Venous Catheter
Morbidity
Survival
topic Arteriovenous Fistula
Central Venous Catheter
Morbidity
Survival
description Introduction: Arteriovenous fistula has been associated with improved morbimortality in hemodialysis patients. This has resulted in the “fistula First, catheter last” initiative. Nonetheless, the survival benefit of arteriovenous fistula has been questioned. Methods: We conducted a retrospective observational study of all patients with non-end stage renal disease referred for first vascular access building between January 2014 and December 2015 in our hospital center. Our main goal was to evaluate the clinical impact and burden of building fistula in predialysis patients. Results: During this period, of 178 first arteriovenous accesses placed, 87 patients remained in predialysis and 91 patients started a chronic hemodialysis program. Median follow-up time by a nephrologist was 3.9 (2.5, 9.7) years. The mean age was 65.8±14.7 years, with 50.6% (n=90) of male patients. A higher rate of thrombosis in the predialysis group (26% vs 13%, p=0.037) was observed, but vascular access survival did not differ significantly (55% vs 67%, p=0.12). Mean vascular access placing was higher in the predialysis group (1.4±0.7 vs 1.2±0.4, p=0.006) and less interventions were requested (0.2±0.5 vs 0.3±0.6, p=0.10). Median time from vascular access placement to hemodialysis start was 22 (13, 41) months. At hemodialysis initiation, 10 (10.9%) patients used a central venous catheter; 80 (87.9%) patients an arteriovenous fistula, and one patient a graft. A total of 227 vascular accesses were built; 121 (53.3%) in predialysis vs 106 (46.7%) in incident hemodialysis patients. In a multivariate model, the presence of a functional arteriovenous fistula at hemodialysis start was only associated with a trend to survival benefit (HR 0.38, 95% CI 0.14-1.00, p=0.05). Conclusions: Our results stress the need for an individual approach and for future tools to assess the risk of death and progression to end-stage renal disease, therefore helping reduce the number of unutilized vascular accesses and rising cost of interventions.
publishDate 2017
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2017
2017-01-01T00:00:00Z
2018-10-30T12:38:30Z
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/10400.16/2246
url http://hdl.handle.net/10400.16/2246
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv Port J Nephrol Hypert 2017; 31(4): 274-280
2183-1289
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Portuguesa de Nefrologia
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Portuguesa de Nefrologia
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron:RCAAP
instname_str Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron_str RCAAP
institution RCAAP
reponame_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
collection Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1799133645737295872