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

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Moreira,Carla Leal
Data de Publicação: 2017
Outros Autores: Teixeira,Vanda, Bessa,Lígia, Queirós,José, Silva,Fernanda, Cabrita,António
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
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/openAccess2023-07-27T12:22:26ZPortal AgregadorONG
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
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1777304401308811264