Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Podcasts
    • Subject Collections
    • Archives
    • ASN Meeting Abstracts
    • Saved Searches
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Resources
    • Reprint Information
  • Trainees
    • Peer Review Program
    • Prize Competition
  • About CJASN
    • About CJASN
    • Editorial Team
    • CJASN Impact
    • CJASN Recognitions
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Advertising
    • Reprint Information
    • Subscriptions
    • Feedback
  • ASN Kidney News
  • Other
    • JASN
    • Kidney360
    • Kidney News Online
    • American Society of Nephrology

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
American Society of Nephrology
  • Other
    • JASN
    • Kidney360
    • Kidney News Online
    • American Society of Nephrology
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Advertisement
American Society of Nephrology

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Podcasts
    • Subject Collections
    • Archives
    • ASN Meeting Abstracts
    • Saved Searches
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Resources
    • Reprint Information
  • Trainees
    • Peer Review Program
    • Prize Competition
  • About CJASN
    • About CJASN
    • Editorial Team
    • CJASN Impact
    • CJASN Recognitions
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Advertising
    • Reprint Information
    • Subscriptions
    • Feedback
  • ASN Kidney News
  • Visit ASN on Facebook
  • Follow CJASN on Twitter
  • CJASN RSS
  • Community Forum
Editorials
You have accessRestricted Access

Reassessing Recommendations for Choice of Vascular Access

Timmy Lee and Michael Allon
CJASN June 2017, 12 (6) 865-867; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2215/CJN.04070417
Timmy Lee
*Department of Medicine, Division of Nephrology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama; and
†Division of Nephrology, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Birmingham, Alabama
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael Allon
*Department of Medicine, Division of Nephrology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • View PDF
Loading
  • arteriovenous fistula
  • arteriovenous graft
  • Arteriovenous Shunt
  • Surgical
  • Catheters
  • Indwelling
  • Choice Behavior

Optimizing vascular access outcomes remains a major challenge, despite the accumulation of consensus guidelines during the past 20 years. The initial Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative guidelines published in 1997 (1) and updated in 2001 (2) and 2006 (3) as well as the “Fistula First Initiative” in 2003 (4) have consistently recommended preferential placement of arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs) over arteriovenous grafts (AVGs). There has been a gratifying increase in AVF use among patients on prevalent hemodialysis in the United States from 35% in 2003 to 63% in 2017 (4). Unfortunately, central vein catheter (CVC) use remains high at about 20% in patients on prevalent hemodialysis and 80% among patients on incident hemodialysis (4). There has also been an alarming increase in the frequency of percutaneous and surgical interventions to promote AVF maturation and maintain their long-term patency for hemodialysis (5).

Several rationales for preferring AVFs over AVGs have been proposed: (1) AVFs have better longevity (6), (2) AVFs require fewer interventions to maintain long-term patency for hemodialysis (6), (3) patients dialyzing with an AVF have a lower mortality than those dialyzing with an AVG (7), and (4) patients with AVFs incur lower access-related costs (6,8). Recent publications have suggested that the purported advantages of AVFs over AVGs may be overstated, because they hold true only if the AVF successfully matures for dialysis use. AVFs fail to mature at higher rates than AVGs and require longer maturation times (6,8). A systematic review of observational studies published from 1996 to 2002 reported that approximately one third (20%–50%) of new AVFs failed to mature successfully for dialysis use (6). Subsequently, the Dialysis Access Consortium Fistula Study, a multicenter trial enrolling 877 United States patients on hemodialysis, reported in 2008 that 60% of new AVFs failed to mature successfully for dialysis within 6 months (9). Most recently, the Hemodialysis Fistula Maturation Study observed an unassisted AVF maturation rate of only 44% in 602 patients (10). As a consequence of their high nonmaturation rates, AVFs have a secondary patency similar to that of AVGs in an “intention-to-treat analysis” (11). Additionally, AVFs requiring interventions to promote maturation have shorter patency and require more frequent interventions to maintain their patency compared with AVFs that mature without an intervention (5,12). In fact, AVFs requiring an intervention before successful use have a shorter survival than AVGs used without a prior intervention (5). Importantly, any delay in using the AVF for hemodialysis prolongs CVC dependence and its potential for causing catheter-related bacteremia.

Two studies by Ravani et al. (13) and Hall et al. (14) appearing in this issue of Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology further challenge the current paradigm that AVFs are preferred to AVGs in all hemodialysis populations in terms of patient survival and cost-effectiveness. Ravani et al. (13) studied 6119 patients enrolled in the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study who initiated hemodialysis with an AVF (37%), an AVG (13%), or a CVC (50%). As expected, access type predicted likelihood of access complications (highest with CVC, intermediate with AVG, and lowest with AVF), and both access type and access complications predicted patient mortality. However, the mortality risk associated with different access types was similar in models including or excluding access complications. These findings suggest that the higher mortality in patients with AVGs and CVCs is not mediated by the higher rate of access complications but rather, is attributable to the higher comorbidity burden of patients receiving these access types. This conclusion is consistent with two recent studies that reported a lower mortality in patients starting hemodialysis with a CVC who underwent prior AVF creation compared with patients without prior AVF surgery, even if the AVF was never used (15,16). It is also in keeping with the observation that only 2.3% of all deaths in patients on incident hemodialysis are access related (15). Ravani et al. (13) recognized the limitations of observational studies and advocated for a definitive randomized, controlled trial to determine whether vascular access complications mediate the association between access type and mortality.

Hall et al. (14) constructed a Markov model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of placing an AVF or AVG or continued CVC use in a hypothetical cohort of elderly (age ≥65 years old) patients initiating hemodialysis with a CVC. Costs, quality of adjusted life-months, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated for patients in different age groups and quartiles of life expectancy. Placement of an AVF was more cost effective than continued CVC use for all age and life expectancy groups except 85–89 year olds in the lowest life expectancy quartile. AVFs were more cost effective than AVGs for all quartiles of life expectancy among the 65- to 69-year-old age group. However, the cost-effectiveness of the AVF relative to the AVG option diminished with increasing age. In other words, both patient age and life expectancy determine the cost-effectiveness of AVF placement. Three recent analyses also concluded that the cost-effectiveness of AVFs was attenuated in older patients (17–19). The conclusions by Hall et al. (14) should be interpreted with caution, because their model incorporated several key assumptions that may differ from routine clinical practice. (1) After failure of an initial access, a patient would undergo only one additional access placement, which would always be of the same type as the first access. (2) All vascular access infections require hospitalization. (3) Fifty percent of procedures to re-establish vascular access patency require hospitalization. To the extent that clinical practice differs from these assumptions, the cost-effectiveness calculations may differ.

Why is the benefit of AVFs less clear among older patients on hemodialysis? Older age is associated with both a lower likelihood of AVF maturation (20) and a shorter life expectancy. In other words, older patients are likely to have a longer duration of catheter dependence before they achieve a usable AVF and may not live long enough to realize the benefits of dialyzing with an AVF. The combined effect of these two factors was highlighted in a single-center report by Richardson et al. (20). Among patients ≥70 years old undergoing AVF creation, only 39% of AVFs were patent at 1 year, and only 50% of patients were alive at 18 months (20). As a consequence, only 35% of patients who died ever used their AVF (20). It is also likely that AVF creation is not cost effective in patients with a poor functional status (which is more common in elderly patients). Thus, for example, in a study of 3702 nursing home patients initiating hemodialysis, only 42% survived 1 year (21).

A definitive answer about the relative merits of AVFs and AVGs in terms of patient survival, frequency of hospitalizations, and access-related costs would require large, multicenter, randomized clinical trials (RCTs), in which patients are allocated to receive one of these vascular access types. Until such RCTs are available, the choice of optimal vascular access placement depends on the clinical judgment of nephrologists and surgeons caring for these patients. A patient on dialysis with a functional AVF may be better off than a patient with a functional AVG. However, a patient with a functional AVG is better off than a patient with an immature AVF and prolonged CVC dependence. An ongoing challenge in vascular access selection is the difficulty in predicting which AVFs will successfully mature for dialysis and which ones will require one or more interventions to promote their maturation. Clinical considerations relevant to access choice may include (1) whether the patient is already using a CVC for dialysis (increasing the risk of catheter-related bacteremia), (2) the likelihood of successful AVF maturation, (3) the outcomes of a previous vascular access, and (4) the patient’s life expectancy and quality of life (22). Even if RCTs comparing different vascular access types are performed, they cannot possibly address every patient scenario, incorporating multiple factors including age, vascular disease, body mass index, functional status, and preoperative arterial and venous diameters. In this regard, a recent study used the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method to assess the appropriateness of an AVF or an AVG in a large number of scenarios (23). Eleven vascular access experts assessed the appropriateness of each access type in 864 clinical scenarios and concluded that an AVG was appropriate in 36% of them (23).

Rather than pursuing an unquestioning “Fistula First” strategy, it is time for clinicians to adopt a “patient-centered” approach that considers individual patient risks of death before need of dialysis, life expectancy after initiating dialysis, and risks of complications with CVC versus AVF (24). Ultimately, nephrologists should assist patients with vascular access decision the basis of making on individualized evaluation of risks and benefits of specific access types, while also considering the patients’ beliefs, values, and preferences (24). To provide care that is truly centered on the individual patient, we must focus on not only traditional metrics (e.g., proportion of patients with AVF, AVG, and CVC use) but also, metrics that capture the process of vascular access selection and support the goals and preferences of the individual patient (25). Ultimately, such an approach will result in choosing “the right access, in the right patient, at the right time, and in the right circumstance” (7).

Disclosures

T.L. is a consultant for Proteon Therapeutics and Merck. M.A. is a consultant for CorMedix.

Acknowledgments

T.L. is supported by grant 1R43DK109789-01 from the National Institutes of Diabetes, Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) and grant 1I01BX003387-01A1 from a Veterans Affairs Merit Award. M.A. is supported by grant 1R21DK104248-01A1 from the NIDDK.

Footnotes

  • Published online ahead of print. Publication date available at www.cjasn.org.

  • See related articles, “Choice of Hemodialysis Access in Older Adults: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis,” and “Examining the Association between Hemodialysis Access Type and Mortality: The Role of Access Complications,” on pages 947–954 and 955–964, respectively.

  • Copyright © 2017 by the American Society of Nephrology

References

  1. ↵
    National Kidney Foundation-Dialysis Outcomes Quality Initiative: NKF-DOQI clinical practice guidelines for vascular access. Am J Kidney Dis 30[Suppl 3]: S150–S191, 1997
    OpenUrlPubMed
  2. ↵
    National Kidney Foundation: III. NKF-K/DOQI clinical practice guidelines for vascular access: Update 2000. Am J Kidney Dis 37[Suppl 1]: S137–S181, 2001
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    Vascular Access 2006 Work Group: Clinical practice guidelines for vascular access: Am J Kidney Dis 48[Suppl 1]: S176–S273, 2006
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    Fistula First Catheter Last Initiative: Available at: http://esrdncc.org/ffcl/. Accessed December 9, 2016
  5. ↵
    1. Harms JC,
    2. Rangarajan S,
    3. Young CJ,
    4. Barker-Finkel J,
    5. Allon M
    : Outcomes of arteriovenous fistulas and grafts with or without intervention before successful use. J Vasc Surg 64: 155–162, 2016
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Allon M,
    2. Robbin ML
    : Increasing arteriovenous fistulas in hemodialysis patients: Problems and solutions. Kidney Int 62: 1109–1124, 2002
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Lok CE,
    2. Foley R
    : Vascular access morbidity and mortality: Trends of the last decade. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 8: 1213–1219, 2013
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    1. Allon M
    : Current management of vascular access. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2: 786–800, 2007
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    1. Dember LM,
    2. Beck GJ,
    3. Allon M,
    4. Delmez JA,
    5. Dixon BS,
    6. Greenberg A,
    7. Himmelfarb J,
    8. Vazquez MA,
    9. Gassman JJ,
    10. Greene T,
    11. Radeva MK,
    12. Braden GL,
    13. Ikizler TA,
    14. Rocco MV,
    15. Davidson IJ,
    16. Kaufman JS,
    17. Meyers CM,
    18. Kusek JW,
    19. Feldman HI
    ; Dialysis Access Consortium Study Group: Effect of clopidogrel on early failure of arteriovenous fistulas for hemodialysis: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 299: 2164–2171, 2008
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    Dember LM: Risk factors for access failure: The Hemodialysis Fistula Maturation Study. Presented at the 2016 American Society of Nephrology Kidney Week Basic/Clinical Science Session “Open for Business: New Insights to Hemodialysis Vascular Access,” Chicago, IL, November 19, 2016
  11. ↵
    1. Lok CE,
    2. Sontrop JM,
    3. Tomlinson G,
    4. Rajan D,
    5. Cattral M,
    6. Oreopoulos G,
    7. Harris J,
    8. Moist L
    : Cumulative patency of contemporary fistulas versus grafts (2000-2010). Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 8: 810–818, 2013
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. ↵
    1. Lee T,
    2. Ullah A,
    3. Allon M,
    4. Succop P,
    5. El-Khatib M,
    6. Munda R,
    7. Roy-Chaudhury P
    : Decreased cumulative access survival in arteriovenous fistulas requiring interventions to promote maturation. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 6: 575–581, 2011
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. ↵
    1. Ravani P,
    2. Quinn RR,
    3. Oliver M,
    4. Robinson B,
    5. Pisoni R,
    6. Pannu N,
    7. MacRae J,
    8. Manns B,
    9. Hemmelgarn B,
    10. James M,
    11. Tonelli M,
    12. Gillespie B
    : Examining the association between hemodialysis access type and mortality: The role of access complications. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 12: 955–964, 2017
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. ↵
    1. Hall R,
    2. Myers E,
    3. Rosas S,
    4. O’Hare A,
    5. Colon-Emeric C
    : Choice of hemodialysis access in older adults: A cost effectiveness analysis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 12: 947–954, 2017
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. ↵
    1. Quinn RR,
    2. Oliver MJ,
    3. Devoe D,
    4. Poinen K,
    5. Kabani R,
    6. Kamar F,
    7. Mysore P,
    8. Lewin AM,
    9. Hiremath S,
    10. MacRae J,
    11. James MT,
    12. Miller L,
    13. Hemmelgarn BR,
    14. Moist LM,
    15. Garg AX,
    16. Chowdhury TT,
    17. Ravani P
    : The effect of predialysis fistula attempt on risk of all-cause and access-related death. J Am Soc Nephrol 28: 613–620, 2017
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. ↵
    1. Brown RS,
    2. Patibandla BK,
    3. Goldfarb-Rumyantzev AS
    : The survival benefit of “Fistula First, Catheter Last” in hemodialysis is Primarily due to patient factors. J Am Soc Nephrol 28: 645–652, 2017
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. ↵
    1. Yuo TH,
    2. Chaer RA,
    3. Dillavou ED,
    4. Leers SA,
    5. Makaroun MS
    : Patients started on hemodialysis with tunneled dialysis catheter have similar survival after arteriovenous fistula and arteriovenous graft creation. J Vasc Surg 62: 1590–1597.e2, 2015
    OpenUrl
    1. DeSilva RN,
    2. Patibandla BK,
    3. Vin Y,
    4. Narra A,
    5. Chawla V,
    6. Brown RS,
    7. Goldfarb-Rumyantzev AS
    : Fistula first is not always the best strategy for the elderly. J Am Soc Nephrol 24: 1297–1304, 2013
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. ↵
    1. Drew DA,
    2. Lok CE,
    3. Cohen JT,
    4. Wagner M,
    5. Tangri N,
    6. Weiner DE
    : Vascular access choice in incident hemodialysis patients: A decision analysis. J Am Soc Nephrol 26: 183–191, 2015
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. ↵
    1. Richardson AI 2nd.,
    2. Leake A,
    3. Schmieder GC,
    4. Biuckians A,
    5. Stokes GK,
    6. Panneton JM,
    7. Glickman MH
    : Should fistulas really be first in the elderly patient? J Vasc Access 10: 199–202, 2009
    OpenUrlPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Kurella Tamura M,
    2. Covinsky KE,
    3. Chertow GM,
    4. Yaffe K,
    5. Landefeld CS,
    6. McCulloch CE
    : Functional status of elderly adults before and after initiation of dialysis. N Engl J Med 361: 1539–1547, 2009
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Allon M,
    2. Lok CE
    : Dialysis fistula or graft: The role for randomized clinical trials. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 5: 2348–2354, 2010
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. ↵
    1. Woo K,
    2. Ulloa J,
    3. Allon M,
    4. Carsten CG 3rd.,
    5. Chemla ES,
    6. Henry ML,
    7. Huber TS,
    8. Lawson JH,
    9. Lok CE,
    10. Peden EK,
    11. Scher L,
    12. Sidawy A,
    13. Maggard-Gibbons M,
    14. Cull D
    : Establishing patient-specific criteria for selecting the optimal upper extremity vascular access procedure. J Vasc Surg 65: 1089–1103.e1, 2017
    OpenUrl
  23. ↵
    1. Moist LM,
    2. Al-Jaishi AA
    : Preparation of the dialysis access in stages 4 and 5 CKD. Adv Chronic Kidney Dis 23: 270–275, 2016
    OpenUrl
  24. ↵
    1. O’Hare AM
    : Vascular access for hemodialysis in older adults: A “patient first” approach. J Am Soc Nephrol 24: 1187–1190, 2013
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology: 12 (6)
Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
Vol. 12, Issue 6
June 07, 2017
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
View Selected Citations (0)
Print
Download PDF
Sign up for Alerts
Email Article
Thank you for your help in sharing the high-quality science in CJASN.
Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Reassessing Recommendations for Choice of Vascular Access
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Society of Nephrology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Society of Nephrology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Reassessing Recommendations for Choice of Vascular Access
Timmy Lee, Michael Allon
CJASN Jun 2017, 12 (6) 865-867; DOI: 10.2215/CJN.04070417

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Reassessing Recommendations for Choice of Vascular Access
Timmy Lee, Michael Allon
CJASN Jun 2017, 12 (6) 865-867; DOI: 10.2215/CJN.04070417
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Disclosures
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • View PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • Time to Procurement and Post-Kidney Transplant Outcomes
  • Recurrent Hyperkalemia in Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System Inhibitor (RAASi) Treatment
  • Postkidney Transplant Care and Health Outcomes of US Veterans
Show more Editorials

Cited By...

  • Factors Influencing AVF Dysfunction in Patients with Maintenance Hemodialysis: A retrospective study
  • Google Scholar

Similar Articles

Related Articles

  • Choice of Hemodialysis Access in Older Adults: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
  • Examining the Association between Hemodialysis Access Type and Mortality: The Role of Access Complications
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Keywords

  • arteriovenous fistula
  • arteriovenous graft
  • Arteriovenous Shunt
  • Surgical
  • Catheters
  • Indwelling
  • Choice Behavior

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Early Access
  • Subject Collections
  • Article Archive
  • ASN Meeting Abstracts

Information for Authors

  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Trainee of the Year
  • Author Resources
  • ASN Journal Policies
  • Reuse/Reprint Policy

About

  • CJASN
  • ASN
  • ASN Journals
  • ASN Kidney News

Journal Information

  • About CJASN
  • CJASN Email Alerts
  • CJASN Key Impact Information
  • CJASN Podcasts
  • CJASN RSS Feeds
  • Editorial Board

More Information

  • Advertise
  • ASN Podcasts
  • ASN Publications
  • Become an ASN Member
  • Feedback
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Password/Email Address Changes
  • Subscribe

© 2021 American Society of Nephrology

Print ISSN - 1555-9041 Online ISSN - 1555-905X

Powered by HighWire