A randomized multicenter study of the outcome of brachial-basilic arteriovenous fistula and prosthetic brachial-antecubital forearm loop as vascular access for hemodialysis

BackgroundVascular access is a necessity for patients with end-stage renal disease who need chronic intermittent hemodialysis. According to Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative (KDOQI) guidelines, radial-cephalic (RC) and brachial-cephalic (BC) arteriovenous fistulas (AVF) are the first and second choice for vascular access, respectively. If these options are not possible, an autogenous brachial-basilic fistula in the upper arm (BBAVF) or a prosthetic brachial-antecubital forearm loop (PTFE loop) may be considered. Until now, it was not clear which access type was preferable. We have performed a randomized study comparing BBAVF and prosthetic implantation in patients without the possibility for RCAVF or BCAVF.MethodsPatients with failed primary/secondary access or inadequate arterial and/or venous vessels were randomized for either BBAVF or PTFE loop creation. The numbers of complications and interventions were recorded. Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate primary, assisted-primary and secondary patency rates. The patency rates were compared with the log-rank test. Complication and intervention rates were compared with the Mann-Whitney test.ResultsA total of 105 patients were randomized for a BBAVF or PTFE loop (52 vs 53, respectively). Primary and assisted-primary 1-year patency rates were significantly higher in the BBAVF group: 46% ± 7.4% vs 22% ± 6.1% (P = .005) and 87% ± 5.0% vs 71% ± 6.7% (P = .045) for the BBAVF and PTFE group, respectively. Secondary patencies were comparable for both groups; 89% ± 4.6% vs 85% ± 5.2% for the BBAVF and PTFE group, respectively. The incidence rate of complications was 1.6 per patient-year in the BBAVF group vs 2.7 per patient-year in the PTFE group. Patients in the BBAVF group needed a total of 1.7 interventions per patient-year vs 2.7 per patient-year for the PTFE group.ConclusionThese data show a significantly better primary and assisted-primary patency in the BBAVF group compared with the PTFE group. Furthermore, in the BBAVF group, fewer interventions were needed. Therefore, we conclude that BBAVF is the preferred choice for vascular access if RCAVF or BCAVF creation is impossible, or when these types of access have already failed

Identifying critically important vascular access outcomes for trials in haemodialysis : an international survey with patients, caregivers and health professionals

BACKGROUND: Vascular access outcomes reported across haemodialysis (HD) trials are numerous, heterogeneous and not always relevant to patients and clinicians. This study aimed to identify critically important vascular access outcomes. METHOD: Outcomes derived from a systematic review, multi-disciplinary expert panel and patient input were included in a multilanguage online survey. Participants rated the absolute importance of outcomes using a 9-point Likert scale (7-9 being critically important). The relative importance was determined by a best-worst scale using multinomial logistic regression. Open text responses were analysed thematically. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 873 participants [224 (26%) patients/caregivers and 649 (74%) health professionals] from 58 countries. Vascular access function was considered the most important outcome (mean score 7.8 for patients and caregivers/8.5 for health professionals, with 85%/95% rating it critically important, and top ranked on best-worst scale), followed by infection (mean 7.4/8.2, 79%/92% rating it critically important, second rank on best-worst scale). Health professionals rated all outcomes of equal or higher importance than patients/caregivers, except for aneurysms. We identified six themes: necessity for HD, applicability across vascular access types, frequency and severity of debilitation, minimizing the risk of hospitalization and death, optimizing technical competence and adherence to best practice and direct impact on appearance and lifestyle. CONCLUSIONS: Vascular access function was the most critically important outcome among patients/caregivers and health professionals. Consistent reporting of this outcome across trials in HD will strengthen their value in supporting vascular access practice and shared decision making in patients requiring HD

Validation of a patient-specific hemodynamic computational model for surgical planning of vascular access in hemodialysis patients

Vascular access dysfunction is one of the main causes of morbidity and hospitalization in hemodialysis patients. This major clinical problem points out the need for prediction of hemodynamic changes induced by vascular access surgery. Here we reviewed the potential of a patient-specific computational vascular network model that includes vessel wall remodeling to predict blood flow change within 6 weeks after surgery for different arteriovenous fistula configurations. For model validation, we performed a multicenter, prospective clinical study to collect longitudinal data on arm vasculature before and after surgery. Sixty-three patients with newly created arteriovenous fistula were included in the validation data set and divided into four groups based on fistula configuration. Predicted brachial artery blood flow volumes 40 days after surgery had a significantly high correlation with measured values. Deviation of predicted from measured brachial artery blood flow averaged 3% with a root mean squared error of 19.5%, showing that the computational tool reliably predicted patient-specific blood flow increase resulting from vascular access surgery and subsequent vascular adaptation. This innovative approach may help the surgeon to plan the most appropriate fistula configuration to optimize access blood flow for hemodialysis, potentially reducing the incidence of vascular access dysfunctions and the need of patient hospitalization

Patient-Specific Computational Modeling of Upper Extremity Arteriovenous Fistula Creation: Its Feasibility to Support Clinical Decision-Making

<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Inadequate flow enhancement on the one hand, and excessive flow enhancement on the other hand, remain frequent complications of arteriovenous fistula (AVF) creation, and hamper hemodialysis therapy in patients with end-stage renal disease. In an effort to reduce these, a patient-specific computational model, capable of predicting postoperative flow, has been developed. The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy of the patient-specific model and to investigate its feasibility to support decision-making in AVF surgery.</p> <h3>Methods</h3><p>Patient-specific pulse wave propagation models were created for 25 patients awaiting AVF creation. Model input parameters were obtained from clinical measurements and literature. For every patient, a radiocephalic AVF, a brachiocephalic AVF, and a brachiobasilic AVF configuration were simulated and analyzed for their postoperative flow. The most distal configuration with a predicted flow between 400 and 1500 ml/min was considered the preferred location for AVF surgery. The suggestion of the model was compared to the choice of an experienced vascular surgeon. Furthermore, predicted flows were compared to measured postoperative flows.</p> <h3>Results</h3><p>Taken into account the confidence interval (25^th and 75^th percentile interval), overlap between predicted and measured postoperative flows was observed in 70% of the patients. Differentiation between upper and lower arm configuration was similar in 76% of the patients, whereas discrimination between two upper arm AVF configurations was more difficult. In 3 patients the surgeon created an upper arm AVF, while model based predictions allowed for lower arm AVF creation, thereby preserving proximal vessels. In one patient early thrombosis in a radiocephalic AVF was observed which might have been indicated by the low predicted postoperative flow.</p> <h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Postoperative flow can be predicted relatively accurately for multiple AVF configurations by using computational modeling. This model may therefore be considered a valuable additional tool in the preoperative work-up of patients awaiting AVF creation.</p> </div

Carotid Baroreflex Activation: Past, Present, and Future

Electrical activation of the carotid baroreceptor system is an attractive therapy for the treatment of resistant hypertension. In the past, several attempts were made to directly activate the baroreceptor system in humans, but the method had to be restricted to a few selected patients. Adverse effects, the need for better electrical devices and better surgical techniques, and the lack of knowledge about long-term effects has greatly hampered developments in this area for many years. Recently, a new and promising device was evaluated in a multicenter feasibility trial, which showed a clinically and statistically significant reduction in office systolic blood pressure (>20 mm Hg). This reduction could be sustained for at least 2 years with an acceptable safety profile. In the future, this new device may stimulate further application of electrical activation of the carotid baroreflex in treatment-resistant hypertension

Duration of temporary catheter use for hemodialysis: an observational, prospective evaluation of renal units in Brazil

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>For chronic hemodialysis, the ideal permanent vascular access is the arteriovenous fistula (AVF). Temporary catheters should be reserved for acute dialysis needs. The AVF is associated with lower infection rates, better clinical results, and a higher quality of life and survival when compared to temporary catheters. In Brazil, the proportion of patients with temporary catheters for more than 3 months from the beginning of therapy is used as an evaluation of the quality of renal units. The aim of this study is to evaluate factors associated with the time between the beginning of hemodialysis with temporary catheters and the placement of the first arteriovenous fistula in Brazil.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This is an observational, prospective non-concurrent study using national administrative registries of all patients financed by the public health system who began renal replacement therapy (RRT) between 2000 and 2004 in Brazil. Incident patients were eligible who had hemodialysis for the first time. Patients were excluded who: had hemodialysis reportedly started after the date of death (inconsistent database); were younger than 18 years old; had HIV; had no record of the first dialysis unit; and were dialyzed in units with less than twenty patients. To evaluate individual and renal unit factors associated with the event of interest, the frailty model was used (N = 55,589).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Among the 23,824 patients (42.9%) who underwent fistula placement in the period of the study, 18.2% maintained the temporary catheter for more than three months until the fistula creation. The analysis identified five statistically significant factors associated with longer time until first fistula: higher age (Hazard-risk - HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.99-1.00); having hypertension and cardiovascular diseases (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.9-0.98) as the cause of chronic renal disease; residing in capitals cities (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.9-0.95) and certain regions in Brazil - South (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.8-0.87), Midwest (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.83-0.94), Northeast (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.88-0.94), or North (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.83-0.94) and the type of renal unit (public or private).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Monitoring the provision of arteriovenous fistulas in renal units could improve the care given to patients with end stage renal disease.</p

Should the Arteriovenous Fistula Be Created before Starting Dialysis?: A Decision Analytic Approach

Background: An arteriovenous fistula (AVF) is considered the vascular access of choice, but uncertainty exists about the\ud optimal time for its creation in pre-dialysis patients. The aim of this study was to determine the optimal vascular access\ud referral strategy for stage 4 (glomerular filtration rate ,30 ml/min/1.73 m2) chronic kidney disease patients using a decision\ud analytic framework.\ud Methods: A Markov model was created to compare two strategies: refer all stage 4 chronic kidney disease patients for an\ud AVF versus wait until the patient starts dialysis. Data from published observational studies were used to estimate the\ud probabilities used in the model. A Markov cohort analysis was used to determine the optimal strategy with life expectancy\ud and quality adjusted life expectancy as the outcomes. Sensitivity analyses, including a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, were\ud performed using Monte Carlo simulation.\ud Results: The wait strategy results in a higher life expectancy (66.6 versus 65.9 months) and quality adjusted life expectancy\ud (38.9 versus 38.5 quality adjusted life months) than immediate AVF creation. It was robust across all the parameters except\ud at higher rates of progression and lower rates of ischemic steal syndrome.\ud Conclusions: Early creation of an AVF, as recommended by most guidelines, may not be the preferred strategy in all predialysis\ud patients. Further research on cost implications and patient preferences for treatment options needs to be done\ud before recommending early AVF creation

Guideline recommendations on minimal blood vessel diameters and arteriovenous fistula outcomes

Objective: Clinical guidelines provide recommendations on the minimal blood vessel diameters required for arteriovenous fistula creation but the evidence for these recommendations is limited. We compared vascular access outcomes of fistulas created in agreement with the ESVS Clinical Practice Guidelines (i.e. arteries and veins >2 mm for forearm fistulas and >3 mm for upper arm fistulas) with fistulas created outside these recommendations. Methods: The multicenter Shunt Simulation Study cohort contains 211 hemodialysis patients who received a first radiocephalic, brachiocephalic, or brachiobasilic fistula before publication of the ESVS Clinical Practice Guidelines. All patients had preoperative duplex ultrasound measurements according to a standardized protocol. Outcomes included duplex ultrasound findings at 6 weeks after surgery, vascular access function, and intervention rates until 1 year after surgery. Results: In 55% of patients, fistulas were created in agreement with the ESVS Clinical Practice Guidelines recommendations on minimal blood vessel diameters. Concordance with the guideline recommendations was more frequent for forearm fistulas than for upper arm fistulas (65% vs 46%, p = 0.01). In the entire cohort, agreement with the guideline recommendations was not associated with an increased proportion of functional vascular accesses (70% vs 66% for fistulas created within and outside guideline recommendations, respectively; p = 0.61) or with decreased access-related intervention rates (1.45 vs 1.68 per patient-year, p = 0.20). In forearm fistulas, however, only 52% of arteriovenous fistulas created outside these recommendations developed into a timely functional vascular access. Conclusions: Whereas upper arm arteriovenous fistulas with preoperative blood vessel diameters <3 mm had similar vascular access function as fistulas created with larger blood vessels, forearm arteriovenous fistulas with preoperative blood vessel diameters <2 mm had poor clinical outcomes. These results support that clinical decision-making should be guided by an individual approach