Role of interventional nephrology in the multidisciplinary approach to hemodialysis vascular access care

Effectiveness and sustainability of a multidisciplinary care model for patients with hemodialysis access dysfunction

BACKGROUND

A multidisciplinary care model involving the interventional radiologist, vascular surgeon, interventional nephrologist, renal advanced nurse practitioner, and renal coordinators was implemented to improve the care for the patient admitted with dysfunctional hemodialysis access. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and sustainability of this multidisciplinary care model.

METHOD

A dedicated interventional nephrology suite was established to perform endovascular procedures for patients admitted with hemodialysis access dysfunction via the emergency department of the hospital. We retrospectively collected data from electronic medical records 1-year before and after the implementation (April 2015). Outcome measures include waiting time for intervention, length of stays (LOS), number of dialysis catheter insertions before the intervention, number of inpatient dialysis required, and success rates of the interventions. The waiting time for intervention and LOS was tracked over the next 3 years to determine the sustainability of the care model.

RESULTS

Eight hundred eighty-one endovascular interventions (314 angioplasties, 567 thrombolysis) were performed on 554 patients. Post-implementation, a greater proportion of intervention was performed within 24 h (238 (50.2%) vs 70 (17.2%), p < 0.001) with lesser proportion of patients requiring bridging hemodialysis via temporary catheter, 156 (32.9%) versus 215 (52.8%), p < 0.001. A shorter median LOS and days-to-intervention were reported, 3 (IQR 2-6) versus 5 days (IQR 3-8), p < 0.001 and 1 (IQR 1-2) versus 3 days (IQR 2-4), p < 0.001 respectively. Less hemodialysis session/patient required, 2 (IQR 1-3) versus 3 (IQR 2-4), p < 0.001. The procedural success rate was greater, 440 (92.8%) versus 355 (87.2%), p = 0.020. Three years following implementation, the proportion of patients who received intervention within 24 h and were discharged within 48 h was reported to be persistently greater, 43% versus 13%, p < 0.001, and 27% versus 6%, p < 0.001 respectively.

DISCUSSION

This multi-disciplinary collaboration demonstrated a sustainable care model in improving the delivery of healthcare services for patients with dysfunctional hemodialysis access.

Multidisciplinary working group: key role for percutaneous endovascular AV fistula program. Point of view

Chronic kidney disease is a progressive condition that affects more than 10% of the general population worldwide. Hemodialysis is the most common therapeutic option for kidney failure, which develops in around one out of 1000 individuals in the general population. Hemodialysis needs a vascular access to connect to the extracorporeal machine. In the last few years percutaneous endovascular arterio-venous fistula technique has been increasingly employed with very promising results. Several advantages have been demonstrated in comparison to the standard surgical creation of an arteriovenous fistula. The percutaneous endovascular arterio-venous fistula technique requires multidisciplinary team work. In our practice, we have organized a multidisciplinary team that includes nephrologists, play a key role, interventional radiologists, vascular surgeons, anesthesiologists, and dialysis nurses. Procedural outcomes and feedback received from patients and family members are evaluated periodically in order to improve results. Nephrologists are involved in each step of the management of the percutaneous endovascular arterio-venous fistula: selection, mapping, creation, and follow up. Patient empowerment, education and involvement is required at each step. A dedicated training program, involving patients and the caregiver team is therefore needed. Additional research is required to confirm the benefit of the multidisciplinary team management in end-stage kidney disease patients.

Current Paradigms and Emerging Opportunities in Nephrology Training

Nephrology is facing a period of remarkable and unprecedented change. The pipeline of device and therapeutic drug development, the growing success of clinical trials, and the emergence of novel clinical practice and training pathways each hold the promise of transforming patient care. Nephrology is also at the forefront of health policy in the United States, given the recent Advancing American Kidney Health initiative. Despite these developments, significant barriers exist to ensure a robust pipeline of well-qualified nephrologists, including but not limited to trainees' declining trainee interest in the specialty, lower board pass rates, and a perceived erosion in stature of the subspecialty. There is a lack of consensus among training program directors regarding procedural training requirements, the number of fellowship positions needed, and the value of the match. There is widespread agreement, however, that any initiative to reassert the value of nephrology must include significant focus on reinvigorating the trainee experience before and during fellowship. We discuss the current state of education in nephrology (from medical school to beyond fellowship) and highlight ways to increase interest in nephrology to reinvigorate the specialty.

Interventional Nephrology: Opportunities and Challenges

The nephrologist has a pivotal role as the leader of multidisciplinary teams to optimize vascular access care of the patient on dialysis and to promote multidisciplinary collaboration in research, training, and education. The continued success of interventional nephrology as an independent discipline depends on harnessing these efforts to advance knowledge and encourage innovation. A comprehensive curriculum that encompasses research from bench to bedside coupled with standardized clinical training protocols are fundamental to this expansion. As we find ourselves on the threshold of a much-awaited revolution in nephrology, there is great opportunity but also formidable challenges in the field - it is up to us to work together to realize the enormous potential of our discipline.

Current state of dialysis access management in Korea

The prevalence rate and the incidence rate of hemodialysis and functioning kidney transplant recipients have continuously increased; on the contrary, those of peritoneal dialysis have continuously decreased since 2006. Dialysis patients have been getting older and have been maintained on dialysis longer. Diabetic nephropathy was the leading cause of end stage renal disease. The type of hemodialysis vascular access has been stable during the last 5 years (arteriovenous fistulas 76%, arteriovenous grafts 16%, central venous catheters 8% at 2016). Peritoneal dialysis catheter was mostly inserted surgically (67%), and swan neck straight tip peritoneal dialysis catheter was the most commonly used (48%). Vascular access was managed by radiologists and surgeons, and the management was fragmented among them in the past. However, since the nephrologists became interested in and knowledgeable about the vascular access, they began to play roles in vascular access management. Vascular access has been mostly created by vascular surgeons (≈60%); tunneled central venous hemodialysis catheter insertion and endovascular intervention such as percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) and thrombectomy have been mostly performed by radiologists (≈70%). Tunneled hemodialysis catheter insertion and endovascular intervention by nephrologists have slowly but consistently increased. Recently, the number of central venous hemodialysis catheter insertion has decreased, and tunneled hemodialysis catheter has been inserted more than non-tunneled hemodialysis catheter, indicating that vascular access has been created timely and the vascular access team has been educated about and following international guidelines.

Elderly patient: which vascular access? Choice and management of vascular access in the elderly patient

The optimal vascular access for elderly patients remains a challenge due to the difficult balance between risks and benefits in a population with increased comorbidity and decreased survival. Long dependence to central vein catheter, patient comorbidities, life expectancy, and complication rates are important influencing the indications for arteriovenous fistula or an arteriovenous graft. Although central vein catheters are simpler way to start a hemodialysis treatment, elderly patients are also at higher risk of death from infection or other complications associated with them more than for younger patients. The discussion revolves around the following key questions:

What are the limiting factors for a vascular access in the elderly patients? Central venous catheter—is it still an option for elderly patients? Is still the autologous arteriovenous fistula playing a pivotal role as hemodialysis access in the elderly patients? Are there any real surgical contraindication to perform a vascular access in elderly patients? Is the old age a limiting factor for the vascular access management?

Outcomes of a nephrologist-driven tunnelled dialysis catheter insertion service in South East Asia

INTRODUCTION

Tunnelled dialysis catheters (TDCs) are being increasingly inserted by nephrologists globally but there is limited experience and paucity of published outcomes data from South-East Asia (SEA). This study was conducted to analyse the outcomes of TDC insertion by nephrologists from a single centre in SEA.

METHODS

All patients who underwent TDC insertion by nephrologists from October 2013 to June 2016 were included. TDC survival was calculated using Kaplan-Meier survival method. Impact of variables was assessed using Cox proportional hazards model.

RESULTS

A total of 344 TDCs were inserted in 274 patients. The most common indication was haemodialysis initiation (60.2%) followed by existing catheter dysfunction (CD) (12.2%), failed vascular access (10.2%) and catheter-related bacteraemia (CRB) (9.9%). Insertion was successful in 97% patients. The most common location was the right internal jugular vein (87%). The cumulative survival for all TDCs inserted, as defined by the time to non-elective removal of a TDC, at 3, 6 and 9 months was 83%, 61%, and 44%, respectively. Median catheter survival was 231 days. Common indications for removal were CD (13.4%) and CRB or suspected infection (12.5%). Common complications were bleeding (8.72%), infection (13.7%) and CD (16.5%). Median time to infection was 103 days. In multivariate analysis, male gender was associated with poor catheter survival, for primary insertions (p = 0.015, HR 0.62) and diabetes was associated with TDC infection (p = 0.024, OR 1.1).

CONCLUSIONS

This is one of the first reports of TDC insertion by nephrologists from SEA. Our outcomes compare favourably with those reported in the literature.

Fistula First Initiative: Historical Impact on Vascular Access Practice Patterns and Influence on Future Vascular Access Care

The vascular access is the lifeline for the hemodialysis patient. In the United States, the Fistula First Breakthrough Initiative (FFBI) has been influential in improving use of arteriovenous fistulas (AVF) in prevalent hemodialysis patients. Currently, prevalent AVF rates are near the goal of 66% set forth by the original FFBI. However, central venous catheter (CVC) rates remain very high in the United States in patients initiating hemodialysis, nearly exceeding 80%. A new direction of the of the FFBI has focused on strategies to reduce CVC use, and subsequently the FFBI has now been renamed the "Fistula First-Catheter Last Initiative". However, an AVF may not be the best vascular access in all hemodialysis patients, and arteriovenous grafts (AVG) and CVCs may be appropriate and the best access for a subset of hemodialysis patients. Unfortunately, there still remains very little emphasis within vascular access initiatives and guidelines directed towards evaluation of the individual patient context, specifically patients with poor long-term prognoses and short life expectancies, patients with multiple comorbidities, patients who are more likely to die than reach end stage renal disease (ESRD), and patients of elderly age with impaired physical and cognitive function. Given the complexity of medical and social issues in advanced CKD and ESRD patients, planning, selection, and placement of the most appropriate vascular access are ideally managed within a multidisciplinary setting and requires consideration of several factors including national vascular access guidelines. Thus, the evolution of the FFBI should underscore the need for multidisciplinary health teams with a major emphasis placed on "the right access for the right patient" and improving the patient's overall quality of life.