Outcomes of Vascular Access Care and Surgery Managed by Interventional Nephrologists: A Twelve-Year Experience

Endovascular versus surgical creation of arteriovenous fistula in hemodialysis patients: Cost-effectiveness and budget impact analyses

Objectives:

The aim of the present study was to perform cost-effectiveness and budget impact analyses comparing endovascular arteriovenous fistula creation to surgical arteriovenous fistula creation in hemodialysis patients from the National Healthcare Service (NHS) perspective in Italy.

Methods:

A systematic literature review has been conducted to retrieve complications’ rates after arteriovenous fistula creation procedures. One study comparing endovascular arteriovenous fistula creation, performed with WavelinQ device, to the surgical approach through propensity score matching was preferred to single-arm investigations to execute the economic evaluations. This study was chosen to populate a Markov model to project, on a time horizon of 1 year, quality adjusted life years and costs associated with endovascular arteriovenous fistula (WavelinQ) and surgical arteriovenous fistula options for both cohorts of incident and prevalent hemodialysis patients.

Results:

For both incident and prevalent hemodialysis patients, endovascular arteriovenous fistula creation, performed with WavelinQ, was the dominant strategy over surgical arteriovenous fistula approach, showing less cost and better patients’ quality of life. Compared to the current scenario, progressively increasing utilization rates of WavelinQ over surgical arteriovenous fistula creation in the next 5 years in incident hemodialysis patients are expected to save globally 30–36 million euros to the NHS.

Conclusion:

Endovascular arteriovenous fistula creation performed with WavelinQ could be a cost-saving strategy in comparison with the surgical approach for patients in hemodialysis. Future studies comparing different devices for endovascular arteriovenous fistula creation versus the surgical option would be needed to confirm or reject the validity of this preliminary evaluation. In the meantime, decision-makers can use these results to take decisions on the diffusion of endovascular procedures in Italy.

Quality assessment of vascular access procedures for hemodialysis: A position paper of the Vascular Access Society based on the analysis of existing guidelines

Quality assessment in vascular access procedures for hemodialysis is not clearly defined. The aim of this article is to compare various guidelines regarding recommendation on quality control in angioaccess surgery. The overall population of end-stage renal disease patients and patients in need for hemodialysis treatment is growing every year. Chronic intermittent hemodialysis is still the main therapy. The formation of a functional angioaccess is the cornerstone in the management of those patients. Native (autologous) arteriovenous fistula is the best vascular access available. A relatively high percentage of primary failure and fistula abandonment increases the need for quality control in this field of surgery. There are very few recommendations of quality assessment on creation of a vascular access for hemodialysis in the searched guidelines. Some guidelines recommend the proportion of native arteriovenous fistula in incident and prevalent patients as well as the maximum tolerable percentage of central venous catheters and complications. According to some guidelines, surgeon’s experience and expertise have a considerable influence on outcomes. There are no specific recommendations regarding surgeon’s specialty, grade, level of skills, and experience. In conclusion, there is a weak recommendation in the guidelines on quality control in vascular access surgery. Quality assessment criteria should be defined in this field of surgery. According to these criteria, patients and nephrologists could choose the best vascular access center or surgeon. Centers with best results should be referral centers, and centers with poorer results should implement quality improvement programs.

The forearm arteriovenous graft between the brachial artery and the brachial vein as a reliable dialysis vascular access for patients with inadequate superficial veins

OBJECTIVE

The arteriovenous fistula (AVF) is recommended as the preferred hemodialysis access. However, placing an AVF in all patients may result in poor access outcomes and increased central venous catheter (CVC) use because of increased comorbid conditions, age, and suboptimal vessels. In patients with inadequate superficial veins for AVFs, the use of the brachial veins for creation of forearm arteriovenous grafts (AVGs) has received limited attention. This retrospective study aimed to evaluate outcomes of forearm brachial-brachial AVGs (BB-AVGs) placed in patients with poor superficial veins.

METHODS

We identified 111 BB-AVGs created in 111 consecutive patients, using standard-walled polytetrafluoroethylene grafts, between January 2010 and December 2015. After excluding 6 patients (non-dialysis initiation, missing information, and death within 1 month), we included 105 patients from 21 dialysis centers. We analyzed primary failures, time to cannulation, patency, complications, and revisions. Patency rates were calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method. The incidence of complications and revisions was expressed as number of events per person-year.

RESULTS

A total of 105 patients (median age, 69 years) were followed up for a median time of 21.2 months (interquartile range, 9.2-36.5 months). Of the patients, 72.4% were on chronic hemodialysis and had previously undergone one or more access procedures. At the time of BB-AVG placement, prior accesses were 39 AVFs, 20 tunneled CVCs, and 17 AVGs. BB-AVG rates of primary failure and revision before cannulation were 7.6% and 5.7%, respectively. BB-AVGs were cannulated after a median time of 3.4 weeks (interquartile range, 2.8-4.1 weeks). Primary patency rates at 12, 24, and 36 months were 49.5%, 29.5%, and 19.5%. Secondary patency rates at 12, 24, and 36 months were 76.3%, 62.7%, and 54.6%. After cannulation, the incidence of complications and revisions was 1.054 and 0.649 per person-year, respectively. Most complications and interventions were due to thrombosis (0.527 per person-year) or stenosis (0.381 per person-year) and related interventions (0.490 per person-year). A minority of patients experienced AVG infections (0.052 per person-year), with only two requiring access removal.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with poor superficial veins, the forearm BB-AVG is a reliable access because of low access-related morbidity and considerable long-term access survival. BB-AVG placement has the advantage of preserving proximal vessels. In these patients, such an approach can delay both rapid exhaustion of vascular sites and early recourse to CVC permanent use.

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.

Standardized Protocol for Hemodialysis Vascular Access Assessment: The Role of Ultrasound and ColorDoppler

Introduction: Ultrasound and colorDoppler technique, which is relatively inexpensive, rapid, non-invasive and repeatable is a powerful tool used for early diagnosis of vascular access (VA) complications in hemodialysis patients. To date a standard and widely comprehensible echocolorDoppler (ECD) protocol is not available. Materials and Methods: A simple step-by-step protocol based on anatomical and hemodynamic parameters of VA has been developed during a 3-years VA ECD follow-up. It consists of an ECD study scheme. The algorithm created involves the calculation of brachial artery flow, description of artero-venous and/or graft-vascular anastomosis and efferent vessel and/or graft. Results: The algorithm allows to formulate a medical report that takes into account both anatomic and hemodynamic parameters of the VA. Reduction of complications and the prevention of chronic complications as well as the early detection of acute problems were achieved. Discussion and Conclusion: The creation of a step-by-step protocol may simplify the multidisciplinary management of VA, its monitoring and the early diagnosis of its complications.

Interventional nephrology: current status and clinical impact in Japan

Background

Current status and clinical significance of interventional nephrology has not been reported from Japan.

Methods

Questionnaires were mailed twice to the directors of all 534 Japanese certificated nephrology training institutions in 2014. The main questions were current performance, categorized annual procedure volume and managers of peritoneal dialysis (PD) access, vascular access (VA) surgery, endovascular intervention, and kidney biopsy. Frequencies of nephrologist involvement between high volume center and low volume center and association between the level of nephrologists’ involvement to each procedure and annual procedure volume were examined.

Results

332 (62.2%) institutions answered performance of all procedures and 328 (61.4%) institutions answered all procedure volume. Kidney biopsy, VA surgery, endovascular intervention and PD access surgery were performed by any doctors in 94.2, 96.3, 88.4, and 76.2% and each involvement of nephrologist was 93.9, 54.1, 53.1 and 47.6%, respectively. Cochran–Armitage analyses demonstrated significant increases in all 4 procedure volume with greater management by nephrologists (p < 0.01). Nephrologists involvement to VA surgery associated with procedure volume increase in not only VA surgery, but also PD catheter insertion (p < 0.01) and kidney biopsy (p < 0.05). And nephrologists involvement to PD catheter insertion also associated with surgical volume increase in both VA surgery (p < 0.01) and endovascular intervention (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

Main manager of all 4 procedures was nephrologist in Japan. Each procedure volume increased as nephrologists become more involved. Acquisition of one specific procedure by nephrologist associated with increase not only in this specific procedure volume, but also the other procedure volume.