Whether and when to refer patients for predialysis AV fistula creation: complex decision making in the face of uncertainty

Predicting Kidney Failure, Cardiovascular Disease and Death in Advanced CKD Patients

INTRODUCTION

Predicting the timing and occurrence of kidney replacement therapy (KRT), cardiovascular events, and death among patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) is clinically useful and relevant. We aimed to externally validate a recently developed CKD G4+ risk calculator for these outcomes and to assess its potential clinical impact in guiding vascular access placement.

METHODS

We included 1517 patients from the European Quality (EQUAL) study, a European multicentre prospective cohort study of nephrology-referred advanced CKD patients aged ≥65 years. Model performance was assessed based on discrimination and calibration. Potential clinical utility for timing of referral for vascular access placement was studied with diagnostic measures and decision curve analysis (DCA).

RESULTS

The model showed a good discrimination for KRT and "death after KRT," with 2-year concordance (C) statistics of 0.74 and 0.76, respectively. Discrimination for cardiovascular events (2-year C-statistic: 0.70) and overall death (2-year C-statistic: 0.61) was poorer. Calibration was fairly accurate. Decision curves illustrated that using the model to guide vascular access referral would generally lead to less unused arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs) than following estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) thresholds.

CONCLUSION

This study shows moderate to good predictive performance of the model in an older cohort of nephrology-referred patients with advanced CKD. Using the model to guide referral for vascular access placement has potential in combating unnecessary vascular surgeries.

Impact of pre-dialysis nephrology care engagement and decision-making on provider and patient action toward permanent vascular access

BACKGROUND

While catheters are often thought the result of emergency hemodialysis (HD) initiation among patients with little or no pre-dialysis nephrology care, the role of patient level of engagement in care and modality decision-making have not been fully explored.

METHODS

This is a retrospective medical record review of adults (age 18-89 years) who received care in academically affiliated private practice, public hospital, or Veterans Administration settings prior to initiating HD with a catheter between 10/1/2011 and 9/30/2012. Primary predictors were level of patient engagement in nephrology care within 6 months of HD initiation and timing of modality decision-making. Primary outcomes were provider action (referral) and any patient action (evaluation by a vascular surgeon, vein mapping or vascular surgery) toward [arteriovenous fistula or graft, (AVF/AVG)] creation.

RESULTS

Among 92 incident HD patients, 66% (n = 61) initiated HD via catheter, of whom 34% (n = 21) had ideal engagement in care but 42% (n = 25) had no documented decision. Providers referred 48% (n = 29) of patients for AVF/AVG, of whom 72% (n = 21) took any action. Ideal engagement in care predicted provider action (adjusted OR 13.7 [95% CI 1.08, 175.1], p = 0.04), but no level of engagement in care predicted patient action (p > 0.3). Compared to patients with no documented decision, those with documented decisions within 3, 3-12, or more than 12 months before initiating dialysis were more likely to have provider action toward AVF/AVG (adjusted OR [95% CI]: 9.0 [1.4,55.6], p = 0.2, 37.6 [3.3423.4] p = 0.003, and 4.8 [0.8, 30.6], p = 0.1, respectively); and patient action (adjusted OR [95% CI]: 18.7 [2.3, 149.0], p = 0.006, 20.4 [2.6, 160.0], p = 0.004, and 6.2 [0.9, 44.0], p = 0.07, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Timing of patient modality decision-making, but not level of engagement in pre-dialysis nephrology care, was predictive of patient and provider action toward AVF/AVG Interventions addressing patients' psychological preparation for dialysis are needed.

Early cannulation of percutaneously created arteriovenous hemodialysis fistulae

INTRODUCTION

The optimal vascular access for most dialysis patients is an arteriovenous fistula and the recognized appropriate process of care for the chronic kidney disease patient is to have the access in place ready for use when renal replacement therapy is required. Unfortunately, as a result of multiple barriers, most patients start dialysis with a catheter and many experience multiple interventions. The recent advent of the percutaneous arteriovenous fistula may offer at least a partial solution to these problems. The purpose of this study was to report of the results of early cannulation of the percutaneous arteriovenous fistula.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Early cannulation, less than 14 days post creation, was performed in 14 cases in order to avoid an initial catheter or continued use of a problematic catheter for dialysis. Immediately post access creation, blood flow ranged from 491 to 1169 mL/min (mean = 790 mL/min). Ultrasound was used to map potential cannulation sites prior to use. Cannulation was performed using plastic fistula cannulas.

RESULTS

Early cannulation was successful in this cohort of cases except for one cannulation complication. Dialysis treatments were otherwise uncomplicated. Primary patency at 3, 6, and 12 months was 76%, 76%, and 66%, respectively. Assisted primary patency for the same intervals was 100%, 100%, and 91%, respectively. Cumulative patency was 100% at all three-time intervals.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study suggest that the possibility of successful early cannulation with a percutaneous arteriovenous fistula can be considered as an additional factor in making this access a reasonable alternative for a surgically created arteriovenous fistula in appropriate patients.

Early cannulation of percutaneously created arteriovenous hemodialysis fistulae

INTRODUCTION

The optimal vascular access for most dialysis patients is an arteriovenous fistula and the recognized appropriate process of care for the chronic kidney disease patient is to have the access in place ready for use when renal replacement therapy is required. Unfortunately, as a result of multiple barriers, most patients start dialysis with a catheter and many experience multiple interventions. The recent advent of the percutaneous arteriovenous fistula may offer at least a partial solution to these problems. The purpose of this study was to report of the results of early cannulation of the percutaneous arteriovenous fistula.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Early cannulation, less than 14 days post creation, was performed in 14 cases in order to avoid an initial catheter or continued use of a problematic catheter for dialysis. Immediately post access creation, blood flow ranged from 491 to 1169 mL/min (mean = 790 mL/min). Ultrasound was used to map potential cannulation sites prior to use. Cannulation was performed using plastic fistula cannulas.

RESULTS

Early cannulation was successful in this cohort of cases except for one cannulation complication. Dialysis treatments were otherwise uncomplicated. Primary patency at 3, 6, and 12 months was 76%, 76%, and 66%, respectively. Assisted primary patency for the same intervals was 100%, 100%, and 91%, respectively. Cumulative patency was 100% at all three-time intervals.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study suggest that the possibility of successful early cannulation with a percutaneous arteriovenous fistula can be considered as an additional factor in making this access a reasonable alternative for a surgically created arteriovenous fistula in appropriate patients.

Timing of referral for vascular access for hemodialysis: Analysis of the current status and the barriers to timely referral

Introduction:

Current guidelines recommend the placement of vascular access 6 months before the anticipated start of hemodialysis therapy; however, many patients start hemodialysis using a central venous catheter. We investigated the timing of referral for vascular access, the vascular access type at hemodialysis initiation, and the barriers to a timely referral.

Methods:

The study involved a retrospective review of 237 patients for whom the first vascular access for hemodialysis was created between January and November 2017.

Results:

Among the 237 patients, 58.2% were referred before hemodialysis initiation, while 41.8% were referred after hemodialysis initiation. Among the 138 patients, 55, 59, and 24 patients were referred more than 6 months, between 2 and 6 months, and within 2 months before hemodialysis initiation, respectively. Within these subgroups, 3.6%, 10.2%, and 75.0% patients underwent hemodialysis initiation with a central venous catheter, respectively. Among the 99 patients referred after hemodialysis initiation, the reasons for late referral were as follows: unexpected rapid progression of kidney disease (n = 23), noncompliance (n = 21), late visit to the nephrologist (initial visit within 2 months of hemodialysis initiation; n = 14), change of treatment strategy from peritoneal dialysis or transplants (n = 9), and unknown reasons (n = 32).

Conclusion:

Only 23% of patients were referred for vascular access 6 months before the anticipated hemodialysis therapy. In addition, 53% of patients initiated hemodialysis with a central venous catheter. Avoidance of catheter insertion was mostly successful in patients referred 2 months before hemodialysis initiation. The most common modifiable barrier to the timely referral was noncompliance.

Putting patients at the center of kidney care transitions: PREPARE NOW, a cluster randomized controlled trial

Care for patients transitioning from chronic kidney disease to kidney failure often falls short of meeting patients' needs. The PREPARE NOW study is a cluster randomized controlled trial studying the effectiveness of a pragmatic health system intervention, 'Patient Centered Kidney Transition Care,' a multi-component health system intervention designed to improve patients' preparation for kidney failure treatment. Patient-Centered Kidney Transition Care provides a suite of new electronic health information tools (including a disease registry and risk prediction tools) to help providers recognize patients in need of Kidney Transitions Care and focus their attention on patients' values and treatment preferences. Patient-Centered Kidney Transition Care also adds a 'Kidney Transitions Specialist' to the nephrology health care team to facilitate patients' self-management empowerment, shared-decision making, psychosocial support, care navigation, and health care team communication. The PREPARE NOW study is conducted among eight [8] outpatient nephrology clinics at Geisinger, a large integrated health system in rural Pennsylvania. Four randomly selected nephrology clinics employ the Patient Centered Kidney Transitions Care intervention while four clinics employ usual nephrology care. To assess intervention effectiveness, patient reported, biomedical, and health system outcomes are collected annually over a period of 36 months via telephone questionnaires and electronic health records. The PREPARE NOW Study may provide needed evidence on the effectiveness of patient-centered health system interventions to improve nephrology patients' experiences, capabilities, and clinical outcomes, and it will guide the implementation of similar interventions elsewhere.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02722382.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Vascular Access Referral Policies in CKD

BACKGROUND

The optimal timing of vascular access referral for patients with chronic kidney disease who may need hemodialysis (HD) is a pressing question in nephrology. Current referral policies have not been rigorously compared with respect to costs and benefits and do not consider patient-specific factors such as age.

STUDY DESIGN

Monte Carlo simulation model.

SETTING & POPULATION

Patients with chronic kidney disease, referred to a multidisciplinary kidney clinic in a universal health care system.

MODEL, PERSPECTIVE, & TIMEFRAME

Cost-effectiveness analysis, payer perspective, lifetime horizon.

INTERVENTION

The following vascular access referral policies are considered: central venous catheter (CVC) only, arteriovenous fistula (AVF) or graft (AVG) referral upon HD initiation, AVF (or AVG) referral when HD is forecast to begin within 12 (or 3 for AVG) months, AVF (or AVG) referral when estimated glomerular filtration rate is <15 (or <10 for AVG) mL/min/1.73m².

OUTCOMES

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs, in 2014 US dollars per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained).

RESULTS

The ICER of AVF (AVG) referral within 12 (3) months of forecasted HD initiation, compared to using only a CVC, is ∼$105k/QALY ($101k/QALY) at a population level (HD costs included). Pre-HD AVF or AVG referral dominates delaying referral until HD initiation. The ICER of pre-HD referral increases with patient age. Results are most sensitive to erythropoietin costs, ongoing HD costs, and patients' utilities for HD. When ongoing HD costs are excluded from the analysis, pre-HD AVF dominates both pre-HD AVG and CVC-only policies.

LIMITATIONS

Literature-based estimates for HD, AVF, and AVG utilities are limited.

CONCLUSIONS

The cost-effectiveness of vascular access referral is largely driven by the annual costs of HD, erythropoietin costs, and access-specific utilities. Further research is needed in the field of dialysis-related quality of life to inform decision making regarding vascular access referral.

Patient factors and haemodialysis arteriovenous fistula outcomes

Arteriovenous fistulas (AVF) improve survival and morbidity for most haemodialysis (HD) patients. Are they better for all patients? In the enthusiastic pursuit of AVFs for all, concerns have been raised regarding high primary AVF failure rates, continued high incident central venous catheter (CVC) use in some countries, and the limited life expectancy of some HD patients. “Fistula first” is changing to “catheter last”. The focus must be on decreasing AVF failure to mature and decreasing incident CVC use. An optimal outcome should be sought for each individual patient, and multiple failed attempts at AVF creation avoided.

Preparation of the Dialysis Access in Stages 4 and 5 CKD

Patients with Stages 4 and 5 CKD are optimally managed within a multidisciplinary care setting. This provides an opportunity to create a "patient centered" approach to renal replacement modality options and conservative care. The care team engages with the patient and caregivers to assist with the understanding of their health status, modality and vascular access selection, and overall living with the comorbidity of chronic illness. A systematic approach to provision of education, modality, and access selection, are in part, driven by the patient's expected survival and need for dialysis, the risks and benefits with different modalities, and access and adaptation to their preferences and home situations. Dialysis access education should be included in all education programs so that patients can consider risks and benefits of all modalities. Decision support interventions have been effective in reducing decisional conflict and informed values-based decision-making. For both hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis, timing of the surgical referral and access creation should be individualized based on the rate of CKD progression, risk of complications, and ease of access to surgical services. The health care team should support the patients' decision balancing risks and benefits, as well as their lifestyle, values, beliefs, and preferences.

Preoperative vessel mapping in chronic kidney disease patients - a center experience

PURPOSE

Hemodialysis (HD) is the main treatment modality in stage 5 chronic kidney disease, and vascular access planning is a crucial step in the path to dialysis treatment. Beyond detailed patient history and physical examination, duplex ultrasound (DU) evaluation is essential in preoperative vascular mapping.

METHODS

A retrospective descriptive nonrandomized study was performed and included 108 end-stage kidney disease patients referred from eight HD centers to be assessed for creation of an arteriovenous (AV) access (AV fistula or AV graft). We assessed primary failure, primary unassisted patency (PP) and primary assisted patency (PAP) rates and cumulative survival of AV accesses at 6 and 12 months.

RESULTS

We created 86 AV accesses of which 79 (91.9%) were AV fistulas (AVFs) (29 distal AVFs, 49 proximal AVFs and 1 femorofemoral AVF) and 7 (8.1%) arteriovenous grafts (AVGs). Fifteen percent (15%) (n = 12) of primary failure occurred in the AVF group. Any case of primary failure was observed between AVGs.In the AVF group, PP at 6 months was 63.8 % and at 12 months was 48.3%, PAP was 80.7% at 6 and 12 months. PP excluding primary failures was 73.0% and 55.3% at 6 and 12 months, respectively. The cumulative survival at 6 and 12 months was 80.7%.In the AVG group, PP at 6 months and 12 months was 66.7%, PAP and cumulative survival at 6 and 12 months were of 100%.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that preoperative vascular mapping with a patient-centered approach may be critical to achieve good outcomes allowing the increase in AVF access.

A Patient-Centered Approach to Hemodialysis Vascular Access in the Era of Fistula First

The primary vascular access options for the hemodialysis population are arteriovenous fistulas (AVF), arteriovenous grafts, and cuffed central venous catheters (CVC). AVFs are associated with the most favorable outcomes with respect to complications, interventions required to maintain functionality and patency, and overall cost. These population-based outcomes, in conjunction with the efforts of the Fistula First Breakthrough Initiative, have propelled the prevalence of AVFs in the US hemodialysis population. While this endeavor remains steadfast in assuring the continued dominance of this policy for AVF preference, it fails to take into account a subset of the dialysis population who will fail to see the benefits of an AVF. This subset of patients may include the elderly, those with poor vasculature anatomy, those with slowly progressive CKD who are more likely to die than progress to ESRD, and those with an overall poor long-term prognosis and shortened life expectancy. Thus, in an effort to avoid numerous unnecessary surgical and interventional procedures with minimal to no gains in clinical outcomes, an individualized patient approach must be adopted. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services-instituted quality incentive program is designed to reward high AVF prevalence while also penalizing high CVC prevalence. The current model is devoid of case-based adjustment, thus penalties are disbursed to dialysis providers in accordance with a "one-size-fits-all" fistula only approach. The most suitable access for a patient remains the one that takes into account the characteristics unique to the individual patient with a primary focus on patient comfort, satisfaction, quality of life, and clinical outcomes.

Optimizing outcomes in the elderly with end-stage renal disease--live long and prosper

BACKGROUND

The elderly form an expanding proportion of patients with chronic kidney disease and end-stage renal disease worldwide. The increased physiological frailty and functional morbidity associated with the aging process pose unique challenges when planning optimal management of an older patient needing renal replacement therapy (RRT).

AIMS

This position paper discusses current evidence regarding the optimal management of end-stage renal disease in the elderly with an emphasis on hemodialysis since it is the most common modality used in older patients. Further research is needed to define relevant patient-reported outcome measures for end-stage renal disease including functional assessments and psychological impacts of various forms of RRT. For those older patients who have opted for dialysis treatment, it is important to study the strategies that encourage greater uptake of home-based dialysis therapies and optimal vascular access.

CONCLUSIONS

The management of advanced chronic kidney disease in the elderly can be challenging but also extremely rewarding. The key issue is adopting a patient-focused and individualized approach that seeks to achieve the best outcomes based on a comprehensive holistic assessment of what is important to the patient.

Preoperative assessment and planning of haemodialysis vascular access

Effective haemodialysis (HD) requires a reliable vascular access (VA). Clinical practice guidelines strongly recommend the arteriovenous fistula (AVF) as the preferred VA in HD patients. The creation of an AVF should be promoted in all eligible patients who choose HD, as it improves outcomes and reduces costs when compared with central venous catheters. Fistula eligibility is a ‘work in progress’. Three steps in order to increase the pool of eligible patients can be individualized: (i) process of care, which includes three fundamental items: the VA team, early VA education and timely VA surgery referral; (ii) preoperative evaluation; (iii) surgical strategy. Nephrologists should be able to play a leading and coordinating role of the VA team. They should design a plan that identifies a sequence of options that can be used to provide adequate renal replacement therapy throughout the life span of every end-stage renal disease patient. The main points of this strategy are (i) early vascular education, in which a ‘save the vein program’ should always be implemented; (ii) timely VA surgery referral and preoperative evaluation: careful examination of arterial and venous beds is mandatory before VA placement; physical examination in addition to colour Doppler ultrasound mapping improves AVF outcomes; (iii) surgical strategy: a successful VA strategy must take into account vascular anatomy, clinical factors and prognosis.

Risk of catheter-related bloodstream infection in elderly patients on hemodialysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Elderly patients require tunneled central vein dialysis catheters more often than younger patients. Little is known about the risk of catheter-related bloodstream infection in this population.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

This study identified 464 patients on hemodialysis with tunneled central vein dialysis catheters between 2005 and 2007 and excluded patients who accrued <21 catheter-days during this period. Outpatient and inpatient catheter-related bloodstream infection data were collected. A Cox proportional hazards regression analysis adjusting for sex, ancestry, comorbidites, dialysis vintage, dialysis unit, immunosuppression, initial catheter site, and first antimicrobial catheter lock solution was performed for risk of catheter-related bloodstream infection between nonelderly (18-74 years) and elderly (≥ 75 years) patients.

RESULTS

In total, 374 nonelderly and 90 elderly patients with mean (SD) ages of 54.8 (12.3) and 81.3 (4.9) years and dialysis vintages of 1.8 (3.3) and 1.5 (2.9) years (P=0.47), respectively, were identified. Mean at-risk catheter-days were 272 (243) in nonelderly and 318 (240) in elderly patients. Between age groups, there were no significant differences in initial catheter site, type of catheter lock solution, or microbiology results. A total of 208 catheter-related bloodstream infection events occurred (190 events in nonelderly and 18 events in elderly patients), with a catheter-related bloodstream infection incidence per 1000 catheter-days of 1.97 (4.6) in nonelderly and 0.55 (1.6) in elderly patients (P<0.001). Relative to nonelderly patients, the hazard ratio for catheter-related bloodstream infection in the elderly was 0.33 (95% confidence interval, 0.20 to 0.55; P<0.001) after multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

Elderly patients on hemodialysis using tunneled central vein dialysis catheters are at lower risk of catheter-related bloodstream infection than their younger counterparts. For some elderly patients, tunneled central vein dialysis catheters may represent a suitable dialysis access option in the setting of nonmaturing arteriovenous fistulae or poorly functioning synthetic grafts.

Health status as a potential mediator of the association between hemodialysis vascular access and mortality

BACKGROUND

It is unknown whether the selection of healthier patients for arteriovenous fistula (AVF) placement explains higher observed catheter-associated mortality among elderly hemodialysis patients.

METHODS

From the United States Renal Data System 2005-2007, we used proportional hazard models to examine 117 277 incident hemodialysis patients aged 67-90 years for the association of initial vascular access type and 5-year mortality after accounting for health status. Health status was defined as functional status at dialysis initiation and number of hospital days within 2 years prior to dialysis initiation.

RESULTS

Patients with catheter alone had more limited functional status (25.5 versus 10.8% of those with AVF) and 3-fold more prior hospital days than those with AVF (mean 18.0 versus 5.4). In the unadjusted model, the likelihood of death was higher for arteriovenous grafts (AVG) {Hazard ratio (HR) 1.20 [95% CI (1.16-1.25)], catheter plus AVF [HR 1.34 (1.31-1.38)], catheter plus AVG [HR 1.46 (1.40-1.52)] and catheter only [HR 1.95 (1.90-1.99)]}, compared with AVF (P < 0.001). The association attenuated -23.7% (95% CI -22.0, -25.5) overall (AVF versus all other access types) after adjusting for the usual covariates (including sociodemographics, comorbidities and pre-dialysis nephrology care) {AVG [HR 1.21 (1.17-1.26)], catheter plus AVF [HR 1.27 (1.24-1.30)], catheter plus AVG [HR 1.38 (1.32-1.43)] and catheter only [HR 1.69 (1.66-1.73)], P < 0.001}. Additional adjustment for health status further attenuated the association by another -19.7% (-18.2, -21.3) overall but remained statistically significant <AVG [HR 1.18 (1.13-1.22)], catheter plus AVF [HR 1.20 (1.17-1.23)], catheter plus AVG {HR 1.38 [1.26 (1.21-1.31)]} and catheter only [HR 1.54 (1.50-1.58)], P < 0.001>.

CONCLUSIONS

The observed attenuation in mortality differences previously attributed to access type alone suggests the existence of selection bias. Nevertheless, the persistence of an apparent survival advantage after adjustment for health status suggests that AVF should still be the access of choice for elderly individuals beginning hemodialysis until more definitive data eliminating selection bias become available.

Creation of arteriovenous fistulae for hemodialysis in octogenarians

Elderly patients, defined as octogenarians and nonagenarians, are an increasing population entering renal replacement therapy. Advanced age appears as an exclusive factor negatively influencing dialysis practice. Elderly patients are referred late for the initiation of hemodialysis and more likely are offered catheters rather than arteriovenous fistulae (AVF), which increase mortality and negatively affect quality of life. We present our approach to the creation of vascular access for hemodialysis in this demanding population. In 2006-2012, 39 patients aged 85.9 ± 2.05 with end-stage renal disease, mainly resulting from ischemic nephropathy, were admitted to the Department of Nephrology to establish permanent vascular access for hemodialysis: preferably AVF. Temporary dialysis catheters were implanted in uremic emergency to bridge the time to fistula creation/maturation. AVF was attempted in 87.2% of the patients. Primary AVF function was achieved in 54% of the patients. Cumulative proportional survival of AVF at months 12 and 24 was 81.5%. Ninety-four percent of AVF were localized on the forearm: 74% in the distal and 20% in the proximal part. Mean duration of hemodialysis therapy was 20.80 ± 19.45 months. The mean time of AVF use was 15.9 ± 20.2 months. Until present, 38% have been dialyzed using AVF for 31.0 ± 18.8 months. Five patients died with functioning fistula. Eight patients initiated hemodialysis therapy with fistula. During further observation, the use of AVF increased to 62%. Elderly patients should not be denied creation of AVF as a rule. The outcome of AVF benefits more from acknowledging individual vascular conditions rather than age of the patient.

Re-envisioning Fistula First in a patient-centered culture

The main options for vascular access in hemodialysis patients are arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs), arteriovenous grafts, and tunneled cuffed central venous catheters. AVFs have the lowest complication rate and require the fewest interventions and lowest cost to maintain. There has been a dramatic national increase in prevalent AVFs among patients with ESRD in the United States driven, in part, by the Fistula First Breakthrough Initiative. The Fistula First Breakthrough Initiative has engaged stakeholders in the dialysis community to disseminate best practices and quality improvement activities to increase AVF prevalence in suitable candidates. In the pursuit of maximizing AVF placement and prevalence, less emphasis has been placed on the individual patient context. An AVF may not be the best access choice in a subset of patients, particularly those with poor long-term prognoses or comorbid chronic diseases with a short life expectancy, those patients more likely to die than to have their CKD progress to ESRD requiring dialysis, and those with vascular anatomy not amenable to successful AVF placement. Placement of an AVF in these patients subjects them to uncomfortable and likely unnecessary and/or unsuccessful surgeries at an expense, while doing little to improve their clinical outcome or their individual experience of care. AVF prevalence as a pay-for-performance measure without the appropriate case-mix adjustment may penalize providers for accepting higher-risk patients. Although a functioning AVF that provides reliable hemodialysis remains the gold standard for vascular access for most patients, it may not be the most suitable option for every patient.

Hemodialysis access usage patterns in the incident dialysis year and associated catheter-related complications

BACKGROUND

Hemodialysis (HD) access is considered a critical and actionable determinant of morbidity, with a growing literature suggesting that initial HD access type is an important marker of long-term outcomes. Accordingly, we examined HD access during the incident dialysis period, focusing on infection risk and successful fistula creation during the first dialysis year.

STUDY DESIGN

Longitudinal cohort.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

All US adults admitted to Fresenius Medical Care North America facilities within 15 days of first maintenance dialysis session between January 1 and December 31, 2007.

PREDICTOR

Vascular access type at HD therapy initiation.

OUTCOMES

Vascular access type at 90 days and at the end of the first year on HD therapy, bloodstream infection within the first year by access type, and catheter complication rate.

RESULTS

Of 25,003 incident dialysis patients studied, 19,622 (78.5%) initiated dialysis with a catheter; 4,151 (16.6%), with a fistula; and 1,230 (4.9%), with a graft. At 90 days, 14,105 (69.7%) had a catheter, 4,432 (21.9%) had a fistula, and 1,705 (8.4%) had a graft. Functioning fistulas and grafts at dialysis therapy initiation had first-year failure rates of 10% and 15%, respectively. Grafts were seldom replaced by fistulas (3%), whereas 7,064 (47.6%) of all patients who initiated with a catheter alone still had only a catheter at 1 year. Overall, 3,327 (13.3%) patients had at least one positive blood culture during follow-up, with the risk being similar between the fistula and graft groups, but approximately 3-fold higher in patients with a catheter (P<0.001 for either comparison). Nearly 1 in 3 catheters (32.5%) will require tissue plasminogen activator use by a median of 41 days, with 59% requiring more than one tissue plasminogen activator administration.

LIMITATIONS

Potential underestimation of bacteremia because follow-up blood culture results did not include samples sent to local laboratories.

CONCLUSIONS

In a large and representative population of incident US dialysis patients, catheter use remains very high during the first year of HD care and is associated with high mechanical complication and bloodstream infection rates.

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 optimal time for its creation in pre-dialysis patients. The aim of this study was to determine the optimal vascular access referral strategy for stage 4 (glomerular filtration rate <30 ml/min/1.73 m²) chronic kidney disease patients using a decision analytic framework.

Methods

A Markov model was created to compare two strategies: refer all stage 4 chronic kidney disease patients for an AVF versus wait until the patient starts dialysis. Data from published observational studies were used to estimate the probabilities used in the model. A Markov cohort analysis was used to determine the optimal strategy with life expectancy and quality adjusted life expectancy as the outcomes. Sensitivity analyses, including a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, were performed using Monte Carlo simulation.

Results

The wait strategy results in a higher life expectancy (66.6 versus 65.9 months) and quality adjusted life expectancy (38.9 versus 38.5 quality adjusted life months) than immediate AVF creation. It was robust across all the parameters except at higher rates of progression and lower rates of ischemic steal syndrome.

Conclusions

Early creation of an AVF, as recommended by most guidelines, may not be the preferred strategy in all pre-dialysis patients. Further research on cost implications and patient preferences for treatment options needs to be done before recommending early AVF creation.

Optimizing renal replacement therapy in older adults: a framework for making individualized decisions

It is often difficult to synthesize information about the risks and benefits of recommended management strategies in older patients with end-stage renal disease since they may have more comorbidity and lower life expectancy than patients described in clinical trials or practice guidelines. In this review, we outline a framework for individualizing end-stage renal disease management decisions in older patients. The framework considers three factors: life expectancy, the risks and benefits of competing treatment strategies, and patient preferences. We illustrate the use of this framework by applying it to three key end-stage renal disease decisions in older patients with varying life expectancy: choice of dialysis modality, choice of vascular access for hemodialysis, and referral for kidney transplantation. In several instances, this approach might provide support for treatment decisions that directly contradict available practice guidelines, illustrating circumstances when strict application of guidelines may be inappropriate for certain patients. By combining quantitative estimates of benefits and harms with qualitative assessments of patient preferences, clinicians may be better able to tailor treatment recommendations to individual older patients, thereby improving the overall quality of end-stage renal disease care.