30 research outputs found

    A mixed-methods investigation of incident Hemodialysis access in a safety-net population

    No full text
    Abstract Background Despite improved health outcomes associated with arteriovenous fistulas, 80% of Americans initiate hemodialysis using a catheter, influenced by low socioeconomic status among other factors. Risk factors for incident catheter use in safety-net populations are unknown. Our objective was to identify factors associated with incident catheter use among hemodialysis patients at one safety-net hospital, with a goal of informing fistula placement initiatives targeted at safety-net populations more generally. Methods We performed a retrospective review of all incident hemodialysis patients at a single urban safety-net hospital from January 1, 2010 - December 31, 2015 (n = 241), as well as semi-structured interviews with a multi-lingual convenience sample of patients (n = 10) from this cohort. The primary outcome was incident vascular access modality. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with incident catheter use. Interview transcripts were coded using a directed content analysis framework based on a model describing barriers to healthcare access. Results Subjects were 61.8% male, racially/ethnically diverse (19.5% white, 29.5% black, 28.6% Hispanic, 17.4% Asian), with a mean age of 52.4 years. Eighty-eight percent initiated hemodialysis using a catheter. In multivariable analysis, longer duration of nephrology care was associated with decreased catheter use (>12 months vs. 0–6 months: adjusted Odds Ratio [aOR] 0.07, 95% CI 0.02–0.23, p < 0.001), whereas uninsured status increased odds of catheter use (aOR 3.96, 1.23–12.76, p = 0.02). There was a decrease in catheter use after vascular surgery services became available in-hospital (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.16–0.98, p = 0.04), however this association was not significant in multivariable analysis (aOR 0.48, 0.17–1.36, p = 0.17). During interviews, patients cited emotional responses to disease, lack of social and financial resources, and limited health knowledge as barriers to obtaining fistula surgery. Conclusions The rate of catheter use in this urban safety-net population is above the national average. Access to health insurance, early referrals to nephrology, and provision of in-hospital vascular surgery should be prioritized in the safety-net. Additionally, services that support patients’ emotional and learning needs may decrease delays in fistula placement

    Comparison of Ellipsys Percutaneous and Proximal Forearm Gracz-Type Surgical Arteriovenous Fistulas

    No full text
    Rationale & Objective: Percutaneous arteriovenous fistulas (AVF) are created by establishing a proximal forearm anastomosis and offer a safe and reliable vascular access. This study compares the Ellipsys percutaneous AVF with a proximal forearm Gracz-type surgical AVF, chosen for comparison as it is constructed at the same anatomical site. Study Design: Retrospective study of prospectively collected clinical data. Setting & Participants: All vascular access procedures conducted during a 34-month period were reviewed. The study groups comprised 89 percutaneous AVFs and 69 surgical AVFs. Exposure: Percutaneous or surgical AVF placement. Outcome: AVF patency, function, and complications. Analytical Approach: Patency rates for each AVF group were evaluated by competing risk survival analysis using a cumulative incidence function. Association of primary, primary assisted, and secondary patency with the AVF groups was examined by Cox proportional hazard models. Results: Technical success was 100% for both groups. Average procedure times were 14 minutes for percutaneous AVFs and 74 minutes for surgical AVFs (P < 0.001). Proximal radial artery (PRA) was used in all percutaneous AVF cases. Inflow for surgical AVFs included radial (30%), ulnar (12%), and brachial (58%) arteries. Outflow veins for both groups were the cephalic and/or basilic veins. Access flow volumes, times to maturation, and overall numbers of interventions per patient-year were not significantly different. Cumulative incidence of primary patency failure at 12 months was lower for surgical AVF (47% vs 64%, P = 0.1), but secondary patency failure was not different between groups (20% vs 12%, P = 0.3). PRA surgical AVFs had similar primary patency (65% vs 64%, P = 0.8) but higher secondary patency failure rates than percutaneous AVFs at 12 months (34% vs 12%, P = 0.04). Limitations: Retrospective study with a relatively short follow-up period, and not all patients required hemodialysis at the end of study. Conclusions: Both percutaneous and surgical AVFs demonstrated high rates of technical success and secondary patency. Percutaneous AVFs required shorter procedure times. The rate of intervention was similar. When a distal radial artery AVF is not feasible, percutaneous AVF might offer an appropriate procedure for creating a safe and functional access, maintaining further proximal forearm surgical AVF creation options
    corecore