Pro: Vascular access surveillance in mature fistulas: is it worthwhile?

Guidelines recommend regular screening of mature arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs) for preemptive repair of significant stenosis (≥50% lumen reduction) at high risk of thrombosis, identifiable from clinical signs of access dysfunction (monitoring) or by measuring access blood flow (Qa surveillance), which also enables stenosis detection in functional accesses. To compare the value of Qa surveillance versus monitoring, a meta-analysis was performed on the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the two screening strategies. It emerged that correcting stenosis identified by Qa surveillance significantly halved the risk of thrombosis [relative risk (RR) = 0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.35–0.73] and access loss (RR = 0.47, 95% CI 0.28–0.80) in comparison with intervention prompted by clinical signs of access dysfunction. One small RCT aiming to identify an optimal Qa threshold showed that stenosis repair at Qa >500 mL/min produced a significant 3-fold reduction in the risk of thrombosis (RR = 0.37, 95% CI 0.12–0.97) and access loss (RR = 0.36, 95% CI 0.09–0.99) in comparison with intervening when Qa dropped to <400 mL/min as per guidelines. To test the real-world benefits of Qa surveillance, the expected RCT-based thrombosis and access loss rates with Qa surveillance were compared with the rates with monitoring reported in observational studies: the expected thrombosis and access loss rates with surveillance were only lower than with monitoring when a Qa >500 mL/min was considered (2.4, 95% CI 1.0–4.6 and 2.2, 95% CI 0.7–5.0 versus 9.4, 95% CI 7.4–11.3 and 10.3, 95% CI 7.7–13.4 events per 100 AVFs-year, P ≤ 0.024), suggesting that in clinical practice adopting Qa surveillance may only be worthwhile at centres with high thrombosis and access loss rates associated with monitoring, and adopting Qa thresholds >500 mL/min for elective stenosis repair.

Spanish Clinical Guidelines on Vascular Access for Haemodialysis

Vascular access for haemodialysis is key in renal patients both due to its associated morbidity and mortality and due to its impact on quality of life. The process, from the creation and maintenance of vascular access to the treatment of its complications, represents a challenge when it comes to decision-making, due to the complexity of the existing disease and the diversity of the specialities involved. With a view to finding a common approach, the Spanish Multidisciplinary Group on Vascular Access (GEMAV), which includes experts from the five scientific societies involved (nephrology [S.E.N.], vascular surgery [SEACV], vascular and interventional radiology [SERAM-SERVEI], infectious diseases [SEIMC] and nephrology nursing [SEDEN]), along with the methodological support of the Cochrane Center, has updated the Guidelines on Vascular Access for Haemodialysis, published in 2005. These guidelines maintain a similar structure, in that they review the evidence without compromising the educational aspects. However, on one hand, they provide an update to methodology development following the guidelines of the GRADE system in order to translate this systematic review of evidence into recommendations that facilitate decision-making in routine clinical practice, and, on the other hand, the guidelines establish quality indicators which make it possible to monitor the quality of healthcare.

Dialysis arteriovenous access monitoring and surveillance according to the 2017 Spanish Guidelines

The Spanish Multidisciplinary Group on Vascular Access (GEMAV), which includes experts from the five scientific societies involved (nephrology (S.E.N.), vascular surgery (SEACV), interventional radiology (SERAM-SERVEI), infectious diseases (SEIMC), and nephrology nursing (SEDEN)), along with the methodological support of the Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre, has developed the Spanish Clinical Guidelines on Vascular Access for Hemodialysis. This article summarizes the main issues from the guideline's chapter entitled "Monitoring and surveillance of arteriovenous access." We will analyze the current evidence on conflicting topics such as the value of the flow-based screening methods for the arteriovenous access surveillance or the role of Doppler ultrasound as the imaging exploration to confirm suspected stenosis. In addition, the concept of significant stenosis and the criteria to perform the elective intervention for stenosis were reviewed. The adoption of these guidelines will hopefully translate into a reduced risk of thrombosis and increased patency rates for both arteriovenous fistulas and grafts.

The rise and fall of access blood flow surveillance in arteriovenous fistulas

Vascular access blood flow (Qa) surveillance has been described as a typical false paradigm, an example of how new tests are sometimes adopted even without good-quality evidence of their benefits. This may be true for grafts, but not necessarily for arteriovenous fistulas. We reviewed the literature on Qa surveillance in fistulas to see whether it complies with the World Health Organization's criteria for screening tests. Measuring Qa has a fairly good reproducibility. Qa shows an excellent-to-good accuracy for stenosis being the only bedside screening test that achieves a very high sensitivity while retaining a fair-to-good positive predictive value for Qa thresholds of 600 ml/minute or higher associated with a >25% drop in Qa, or findings suggesting stenosis on physical examination. The accuracy of Qa in predicting thrombosis is hard to establish because of the heterogeneity of published studies, though a Qa of 300 ml/minute seems the most reliable cutoff. Qa surveillance affords a significant 2- to 3-fold reduction in the risk of thrombosis by comparison with clinical monitoring alone when Qa criteria highly sensitive to stenosis are considered, regardless of the study design (randomized controlled trials, cohort studies with concurrent or historic controls). Using highly sensitive Qa screening criteria also halves the risk of access loss, although this effect is not statistically significant. Our analysis strongly suggests that Qa surveillance is an effective method for screening mature fistulas, though further, appropriately designed studies are needed to fully elucidate its benefits and cost effectiveness.

Vascular access for hemodialysis: postoperative evaluation and function monitoring

Vascular access (VA) survival is a crucial issue associated with morbidity and mortality of patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis. The development of stenosis is the major factor that leads to VA failure. Strategies for early detection of lesions within a VA system before serious complications arise are therefore crucial. The implementation of a VA surveillance program could lead to timely detection of VA dysfunction and referral for correction, reduction in central venous catheter use and decrease in hospitalization and VA-related cost. Suggested methods for arteriovenous fistulae and grafts surveillance include blood flow measurement, static pressure evaluation and duplex ultrasonography. Physical examination is an accepted method in contrast to nonstandardized dynamic pressure measurement for grafts. Access recirculation (not urea based) and dynamic pressure measurements are accepted methods for fistulae. Decreasing URR or Kt/V (otherwise unexplained) and increased (negative) arterial pressure in the dialysis machine are methods of limited sensitivity and specificity for both fistulae and grafts. Measurement of access blood flow has been proposed as the gold standard for the screening of all types of VA. Access flow can be measured by various techniques which are direct or indirect. Several studies about VA surveillance programs have demonstrated conflicting results. Larger, randomized controlled trials need to be carried out in order to clarify whether surveillance programs are necessary and which is the best surveillance strategy for each type of VA.

A Computational Study of the Factors Influencing Pressure in Arteriovenous Fistulae Venous Aneurysms

Purpose

To investigate the factors influencing the hydrostatic pressure exerted within the venous aneurysms (VA) of an arteriovenous fistula (AVF).

Methods

Ideal models of a side-to-end brachial-cephalic AVF were computationally constructed and typical values for the length and the local diameters were considered for both the artery and vein sections of the models. Three VA configurations were reconstructed (spherical, fusiform and curved) and hydrostatic pressure was assessed with respect to different degrees of the outflow vein stenosis, ranging from 25% to 95%, and VA maximum diameters, using validated, commercially available software.

Results

The pressure in the VA was steady (1200 Pa) for venous outflow stenoses up to 75%. For stenoses greater than 75% a exponential pressure rise was observed, reaching 1500 Pa for stenoses of 95%. Neither the VA configuration nor its maximum diameter affected the pressure values exerted within the VA or the point of the pressure upstroke.

Conclusions

our study supports the presence of a critical stenotic outflow vein diameter beyond which there is an exponential VA pressure increase, influenced neither by the shape nor the size of the VA. Whether the prompt, non-invasive detection of this finding can contribute or lead to the determination of a criterion for early intervention in VAs before clinical complications are developed, should be investigated by future studies.

Monitoring Dialysis Arteriovenous Fistulae: It's in our Hands

Vascular access problems are a daily occurrence in hemodialysis units. Loss of patency of the vascular access limits hemodialysis delivery and may result in underdialysis that leads to increased morbidity and mortality. Despite the known superiority of autogenous fistulae over grafts, autogenous fistulae also suffer from frequent development of stenosis and subsequent thrombosis. International guidelines recommend programmes for detection of stenosis and consequent correction in an attempt to reduce the rate of thrombosis. Physical examination of autogenous fistulae has recently been revisited as an important element in the assessment of stenotic lesions. Prospective observational studies have consistently demonstrated that physical examination performed by trained physicians is an accurate method for the diagnosis of fistula stenosis and, therefore, should be part of all surveillance protocols of the vascular access. However, to optimize hemodialysis access surveillance, hemodialysis practitioners may need to improve their skills in performing physical examination. The purpose of this article is to review the basics and drawbacks of physical examination for dialysis arteriovenous fistulae and to provide the reader with its diagnostic accuracy in the detection of arteriovenous fistula dysfunction, based on current published literature.