Pre-emptive correction for haemodialysis arteriovenous access stenosis

Predicting factors for early failure of vascular access in hemodialysis patients

Purpose

This study aimed to investigate the incidence of early failure of vascular access for hemodialysis, and determine which factors measured in duplex ultrasound study could predict early failure.

Methods

We performed a retrospective review of patients who underwent arteriovenous fistula (AVF) or arteriovenous graft (AVG) creation for hemodialysis between September 2019 and January 2023. Early failure was defined as any event that required surgical or endovascular intervention within 6 months following AVF or AVG creation.

Results

A total of 189 patients were included. Early failure occurred in 36 patients (19.0%), which included 22 AVFs and 14 AVGs. In the patients who underwent AVF, the preoperative venous diameter, postoperative venous and arterial diameters, and flow volume of AVF all were significantly smaller in the early failure group compared to the patent group. In AVG, the preoperative venous diameter was the only parameter that differed between the 2 groups. A sonographic score was defined based on these factors. In a multivariable analysis, male sex, a previous history of AVF or AVG creation, and sonographic score were found to be significantly associated with early failure. The postoperative venous diameter in AVF and the preoperative venous diameter in AVG were highly predictive of early failure (areas under the curves 0.92 and 0.82, respectively).

Conclusion

Venous diameter measured 6 weeks following AVF operation and preoperative venous diameter in AVG were highly predictive of early failure among the duplex ultrasound parameters. Surveillance strategies in the early phase following vascular access creation can be based on these factors.

Arteriovenous Access for Hemodialysis: A Review

Importance

Hemodialysis requires reliable vascular access to the patient's blood circulation, such as an arteriovenous access in the form of an autogenous arteriovenous fistula or nonautogenous arteriovenous graft. This Review addresses key issues associated with the construction and maintenance of hemodialysis arteriovenous access.

Observations

All patients with kidney failure should have an individualized strategy (known as Patient Life-Plan, Access Needs, or PLAN) for kidney replacement therapy and dialysis access, including contingency plans for access failure. Patients should be referred for hemodialysis access when their estimated glomerular filtration rate progressively decreases to 15 to 20 mL/min, or when their peritoneal dialysis, kidney transplant, or current vascular access is failing. Patients with chronic kidney disease should limit or avoid vascular procedures that may complicate future arteriovenous access, such as antecubital venipuncture or peripheral insertion of central catheters. Autogenous arteriovenous fistulas require 3 to 6 months to mature, whereas standard arteriovenous grafts can be used 2 to 4 weeks after being established, and "early-cannulation" grafts can be used within 24 to 72 hours of creation. The prime pathologic lesion of flow-related complications of arteriovenous access is intimal hyperplasia within the arteriovenous access that can lead to stenosis, maturation failure (33%-62% at 6 months), or poor patency (60%-63% at 2 years) and suboptimal dialysis. Nonflow complications such as access-related hand ischemia ("steal syndrome"; 1%-8% of patients) and arteriovenous access infection require timely identification and treatment. An arteriovenous access at high risk of hemorrhaging is a surgical emergency.

Conclusions and Relevance

The selection, creation, and maintenance of arteriovenous access for hemodialysis vascular access is critical for patients with kidney failure. Generalist clinicians play an important role in protecting current and future arteriovenous access; identifying arteriovenous access complications such as infection, steal syndrome, and high-output cardiac failure; and making timely referrals to facilitate arteriovenous access creation and treatment of arteriovenous access complications.

Guidelines on vascular access for hemodialysis from the Brazilian Society of Angiology and Vascular Surgery

Chronic kidney disease is a worldwide public health problem, and end-stage renal disease requires dialysis. Most patients requiring renal replacement therapy have to undergo hemodialysis. Therefore, vascular access is extremely important for the dialysis population, directly affecting the quality of life and the morbidity and mortality of this patient population. Since making, managing and salvaging of vascular accesses falls within the purview of the vascular surgeon, developing guideline to help specialists better manage vascular accesses for hemodialysis if of great importance. Thus, the objective of this guideline is to present a set of recommendations to guide decisions involved in the referral, evaluation, choice, surveillance and management of complications of vascular accesses for hemodialysis.

Development and Validation of a Machine Learning Model Predicting Arteriovenous Fistula Failure in a Large Network of Dialysis Clinics

Background: Vascular access surveillance of dialysis patients is a challenging task for clinicians. We derived and validated an arteriovenous fistula failure model (AVF-FM) based on machine learning. Methods: The AVF-FM is an XG-Boost algorithm aimed at predicting AVF failure within three months among in-centre dialysis patients. The model was trained in the derivation set (70% of initial cohort) by exploiting the information routinely collected in the Nephrocare European Clinical Database (EuCliD^®). Model performance was tested by concordance statistic and calibration charts in the remaining 30% of records. Features importance was computed using the SHAP method. Results: We included 13,369 patients, overall. The Area Under the ROC Curve (AUC-ROC) of AVF-FM was 0.80 (95% CI 0.79–0.81). Model calibration showed excellent representation of observed failure risk. Variables associated with the greatest impact on risk estimates were previous history of AVF complications, followed by access recirculation and other functional parameters including metrics describing temporal pattern of dialysis dose, blood flow, dynamic venous and arterial pressures. Conclusions: The AVF-FM achieved good discrimination and calibration properties by combining routinely collected clinical and sensor data that require no additional effort by healthcare staff. Therefore, it can potentially enable risk-based personalization of AVF surveillance strategies.

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes in Patients Undergoing a Salvage Procedure for Thrombosed Hemodialysis Arteriovenous Grafts

Background

The major limitation of arteriovenous graft access is the high incidence of thrombotic occlusion. This study investigated the outcomes of our salvage strategy for thrombosed hemodialysis arteriovenous grafts (including surgical thrombectomy with balloon angioplasty) and evaluated the efficacy of intragraft curettage.

Methods

Salvage operations were performed for 290 thrombotic occluded arteriovenous grafts with clinical stenotic lesions from 2010 to 2018. Of these, 117 grafts received surgical thrombectomy and balloon angioplasty from 2010 to 2012 (group A), and 173 grafts received surgical thrombectomy and balloon angioplasty, with an additional salvage procedure using a curette and a graft thrombectomy catheter, from 2013 to 2018 (group B). Outcomes were described in terms of post-intervention primary patency and secondary patency rates.

Results

The post-intervention primary patency rates in groups A and B were 44.2% and 66.1% at 6 months and 23.0% and 38.3% at 12 months, respectively (p=0.003). The post-intervention secondary patency rates were 87.6% and 92.6% at 6 months and 79.7% and 85.0% at 12 months, respectively (p=0.623). Multivariate Cox regression analysis demonstrated that intragraft curettage was a positive predictor of post-intervention primary patency (hazard ratio, 0.700; 95% confidence interval, 0.519-0.943; p=0.019).

Conclusion

Surgical thrombectomy and balloon angioplasty showed acceptable outcomes concerning post-intervention primary and secondary patency rates. Additionally, intragraft curettage may offer better patency to salvage thrombotic occluded arteriovenous grafts with intragraft stenosis.

Endovascular Treatment for Vascular Access Venous Hypertension with Complicated Venous Drainage Routes in a Hemodialysis Patient: A Case Report

Patient: Female, 68-year-old

Final Diagnosis: Vascular access venous hypertension

Symptoms: Difficulties during hemodialysis

Medication: —

Clinical Procedure: —

Specialty: Cardiology • Nephrology • Radiology

Multi-Disciplinary Vascular Access Care and Access Outcomes in People Starting Hemodialysis Therapy

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Fistulas, the preferred form of hemodialysis access, are difficult to establish and maintain. We examined the effect of a multidisciplinary vascular access team, including nurses, surgeons, and radiologists, on the probability of using a fistula catheter-free, and rates of access-related procedures in incident patients receiving hemodialysis.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

We examined vascular access outcomes in the first year of hemodialysis treatment before (2004-2005, preteam period) and after the implementation of an access team (2006-2008, early-team period; 2009-2011, late-team period) in the Calgary Health Region, Canada. We used logistic regression to study the probability of fistula creation and the probability of catheter-free fistula use, and negative binomial regression to study access-related procedure rates.

RESULTS

We included 609 adults (mean age, 65 [±15] years; 61% men; 54% with diabetes). By the end of the first year of hemodialysis, 102 participants received a fistula in the preteam period (70%), 196 (78%) in the early-team period (odds ratios versus preteam, 1.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.92 to 2.35), and 139 (66%) in the late-team period (0.85; 0.54 to 1.35). Access team implementation did not affect the probability of catheter-free use of the fistula (odds ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.52 to 1.43, for the early; and 0.89; 0.52 to 1.53, for the late team versus preteam period). Participants underwent an average of 4-5 total access-related procedures during the first year of hemodialysis, with higher rates in women and in people with comorbidities. Catheter-related procedure rates were similar before and after team implementation; relative to the preteam period, fistula-related procedure rates were 40% (20%-60%) and 30% (10%-50%) higher in the early-team and late-team periods, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Introduction of a multidisciplinary access team did not increase the probability of catheter-free fistula use, but resulted in higher rates of fistula-related procedures.

Pre-emptive correction for haemodialysis arteriovenous access stenosis

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend routine arteriovenous (AV) graft and fistula surveillance (technology-based screening) in addition to clinical monitoring (physical examination) for early identification and pre-emptive correction of a stenosis before the access becomes dysfunctional. However, consequences on patient-relevant outcomes of pre-emptive correction of a stenosis in a functioning access as opposed to deferred correction, i.e. correction postponed to when the access becomes dysfunctional, are uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to evaluate 1) whether pre-emptive correction of an AV access stenosis improves clinically relevant outcomes; 2) whether the effects of pre-emptive correction of an AV access stenosis differ by access type (fistula versus graft), aim (primary and secondary prophylaxis), and surveillance method for primary prophylaxis (Doppler ultrasound for the screening of functional and anatomical changes versus measurement of the flow in the access); and 3) whether other factors (dialysis duration, access location, configuration or materials, algorithm for referral for intervention, intervention strategies (surgical versus radiological or other), or study design) explain the heterogeneity that might exist in the effect estimates.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialised Register to 30 November 2015 using search terms relevant to this review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all studies of any access surveillance method for early identification and pre-emptive treatment of an AV access stenosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data on potentially remediable and irremediable failure of the access (i.e. thrombosis and access loss respectively); infection and mortality; and resource use (hospitalisation, diagnostic and intervention procedures). Analysis was by a random effects model and results expressed as risk ratio (RR), hazard ratio (HR) or incidence rate ratio (IRR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 14 studies (1390 participants), nine enrolled adults without a known access stenosis (primary prophylaxis; three studies including people using fistulas) and five enrolled adults with a documented stenosis in a non-dysfunctional access (secondary prophylaxis; three studies in people using fistulas). Study follow-up ranged from 6 to 38 months, and study size ranged from 58 to 189 participants. In low- to moderate-quality evidence (based on GRADE criteria) in adults treated with haemodialysis, relative to no surveillance and deferred correction, surveillance with pre-emptive correction of an AV stenosis reduced the risk of thrombosis (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.97; I² = 30%; 18 study comparisons, 1212 participants), but had imprecise effect on the risk of access loss (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.02; I² = 0%; 11 study comparisons, 972 participants). In analyses subgrouped by access type, pre-emptive stenosis correction did not reduce the risk of thrombosis (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.8 to 1.12; I² = 0%; 11 study comparisons, 697 participants) or access loss in grafts (RR 0.9, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.15; I² = 0%; 7 study comparisons; 662 participants), but did reduce the risk of thrombosis (RR 0.5, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.71; I² = 0%; 7 study comparisons, 515 participants) and the risk of access loss in fistulas (RR 0.5, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.86; I² = 0%; 4 studies; 310 participants). Three of the four studies reporting access loss data in fistulas (199 participants) were conducted in the same centre. Insufficient data were available to assess whether benefits vary by prophylaxis aim in fistulas (i.e. primary and secondary prophylaxis). Although the magnitude of the effects of pre-emptive stenosis correction was considerable for patient-centred outcomes, results were either heterogeneous or imprecise. While pre-emptive stenosis correction may reduce the rates of hospitalisation (IRR 0.54, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.93; I² = 67%; 4 study comparisons, 219 participants) and use of catheters (IRR 0.58, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.98; I² = 53%; 6 study comparisons, 394 participants), it may also increase the rates of diagnostic procedures (IRR 1.78, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.67; I² = 62%; 7 study comparisons, 539 participants), infection (IRR 1.74, 95% CI 0.78 to 3.91; I² = 0%; 3 studies, 248 participants) and mortality (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.91 to 2.11; I² = 0%; 5 studies, 386 participants).In general, risk of bias was high or unclear in most studies for many domains we assessed. Four studies were published after 2005 and only one had evidence of registration within a trial registry. No study reported information on authorship and/or involvement of the study sponsor in data collection, analysis, and interpretation.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Pre-emptive correction of a newly identified or known stenosis in a functional AV access does not improve access longevity. Although pre-emptive stenosis correction may be promising in fistulas existing evidence is insufficient to guide clinical practice and health policy. While pre-emptive stenosis correction may reduce the risk of hospitalisation, this benefit is uncertain whereas there may be a substantial increase (i.e. 80%) in the use of access-related procedures and procedure-related adverse events (e.g. infection, mortality). The net effects of pre-emptive correction on harms and resource use are thus unclear.