Are we building too many arteriovenous fistulas?: A single-center experience
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2017 |
Outros Autores: | , , , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
Texto Completo: | http://scielo.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0872-01692017000400005 |
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_01f8bfcbe6264f0f156101cad04abb01 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:scielo:S0872-01692017000400005 |
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 interventionsSociedade Portuguesa de Nefrologia2017-12-01info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articletext/htmlhttp://scielo.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0872-01692017000400005Portuguese Journal of Nephrology & Hypertension v.31 n.4 2017reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAPenghttp://scielo.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0872-01692017000400005Moreira,Carla LealTeixeira,VandaBessa,LígiaQueirós,JoséSilva,FernandaCabrita,Antónioinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2024-02-06T17:04:56Zoai:scielo:S0872-01692017000400005Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-20T02:18:59.243518Repositório 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 Moreira,Carla Leal 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 |
Moreira,Carla Leal |
author_facet |
Moreira,Carla Leal Teixeira,Vanda Bessa,Lígia Queirós,José Silva,Fernanda Cabrita,António |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Teixeira,Vanda Bessa,Lígia Queirós,José Silva,Fernanda Cabrita,António |
author2_role |
author author author author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Moreira,Carla Leal Teixeira,Vanda Bessa,Lígia Queirós,José Silva,Fernanda Cabrita,António |
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 |
2017-12-01 |
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://scielo.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0872-01692017000400005 |
url |
http://scielo.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0872-01692017000400005 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
http://scielo.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0872-01692017000400005 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
text/html |
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 |
Portuguese Journal of Nephrology & Hypertension v.31 n.4 2017 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_ |
1817550414896168960 |