A Comparison of Outcomes Between Open and Endovascular Arteriovenous Access Creation for Hemodialysis

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.

Dialysis Access-Associated Steal Syndrome in High-Risk Patients Undergoing Surgery for Hemodialysis Access: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Preventive Operative Techniques

This systematic review and meta-analysis examine preventive operative techniques in high-risk patients undergoing surgery for hemodialysis access to mitigate the risk of Dialysis Access-Associated Steal Syndrome (DASS). Chronic kidney disease often leads to end-stage renal disease (ESRD), necessitating dialysis. Successful vascular access is crucial for efficient dialysis, but complications, such as DASS, pose significant challenges. DASS redirects arterial blood flow, affecting populations undergoing arteriovenous access surgery. This study aims to assess preventive strategies, including distal revascularization with interval ligation (DRIL) and extension techniques. A systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Web of Science until 2022 identified 11 relevant studies. The inclusion criteria comprised non-pediatric hemodialysis patients reporting outcomes related to patency and complications. The data were analyzed using Review Manager 5.3.5 (The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen). Meta-analysis indicated a significant association between DASS and arteriovenous fistula (AVF) or arteriovenous graft (AVG) procedures. Radiocephalic AVF (RC-AVF) and distal endovascular AVF procedures were favored. Various interventions addressed venous narrowing, including simple plication and loop interposition. The Modified by Inserted Latex Link for Endovascular Repair (MILLER) technique, DRIL, Extension Technique, and Proximalization of Arterial Inflow (PAI) were assessed for arterial bypass graft and blood supply preservation. This study underscores the importance of individualized strategies in preventing DASS during hemodialysis access surgery. Prophylactic measures, such as the extension technique, show promise, while DRIL remains effective in treatment. Ongoing research is imperative for optimizing outcomes in this complex patient population.

Percutaneous Creation of Hemodialysis Fistulas

Non-surgical, percutaneous, or endovascular hemodialysis arteriovenous creation represent an evolution of access creation away from traditional surgical fistulas. These fistulas are additional to surgical alternatives and published studies with the two commercially available devices suggest positive outcomes in terms of technical success, maturation, functionality, and patency. Relevant published studies are presented, and other considerations related to these new devices/procedures are also summarized.

Early clinical experience and comparison between percutaneous and surgical arteriovenous fistula

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous arteriovenous fistula (pAVF) has been recently developed as an alternative to surgical AVF (sAVF). We report our experience with pAVF in comparison with a contemporaneous sAVF group.

METHODS

Charts of all 51 patients with pAVF performed at our institution were analyzed retrospectively, in addition to 51 randomly selected contemporaneous patients with sAVF (2018-2022) with available follow-up. Outcomes of interest were (i) procedural success rate, (ii) number of maturation procedures required, (iii) fistula maturation rates, and (iv) rates of tunneled dialysis catheter (TDC) removal. For patients on hemodialysis (HD), sAVF and pAVF were considered mature when the AVF was used for HD. For patients not on HD, pAVF were considered mature if flow rates of ≥500 mL/min were documented in superficial venous outflow; for sAVF, documentation of maturity based on clinical criteria was required.

RESULTS

Compared patients with sAVF, patients with pAVF were more likely to be male (78% vs 57%; P = .033) and less likely to have congestive heart failure (10% vs 43%; P < .001) and coronary artery disease (18% vs 43%; P = .009). Procedural success was achieved in 50 patients with pAVF (98%). Fistula angioplasties (60% vs 29%; P = .002) and ligation (24% vs 2%; P = .001) or embolization (22% vs 2%; P = .002) of competing outflow veins were more frequently performed on patients with pAVF. The surgical cohort had more planned transpositions (39% vs 6%; P < .001). When all maturation interventions were combined, pAVF required more maturation procedures, but this was not statistically significant (76% vs 53%; P = .692). When planned second-stage transpositions were excluded, pAVF had a statistically significant higher rate of maturation procedures (74% vs 24%; P < .001). Overall, 36 pAVF (72%) and 29 sAVF (57%) developed mature fistulas. This difference, however, was not statistically significant (P = .112). At the time of AVF creation, 26 patients with pAVF and 40 patients with sAVF were on HD, all through use of a TDC. Catheter removal was recorded in 15 patients with pAVF (58%) and 18 patients with sAVF (45%) (P = .314). The mean time until TDC removal in pAVF group was 146 ± 74 days, compared with 175 ± 99 in the sAVF group (P = .341).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with sAVF, rates of maturation after pAVF seem to be similar, but this result may be related to the higher intensity of maturation procedures and patient selection. An analysis of appropriately matched patients will assist in elucidating the possible role of pAVF vis-a-vis sAVF.

A systematic review aggregated data and individual participant data meta-analysis of percutaneous endovascular arteriovenous fistula

OBJECTIVE

To assess the short-term and mid-term safety and efficacy of percutaneous endovascular arteriovenous fistula (pAVF) creation.

METHODS

A systematic search was implemented corresponding to the PRISMA 2020 and the PRISMA for individual participant data (IPD) systematic reviews 2015. Aggregated data from the included studies were obtained and meta-analyzed regarding both the overall pAVF efficacy and the comparison of pAVF with surgical AVF (sAVF). We performed a two-stage IPD meta-analysis for studies comparing pAVF and sAVF regarding primary and secondary patency. Primary end points included primary patency, secondary patency, and functional cannulation.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies with 1863 patients were included. The overall pAVF, primary patency, secondary patency, functional cannulation and abandonment rates were 54.01% (95% confidence interval [CI], 40.69-66.79), 87.27% (95% CI, 81.53-91.42), 79.94% (95% CI, 65.94-89.13), and 15.58% (95% CI, 7.77-28.79), respectively. The overall pAVF, technical success, maturation, reintervention per person-years and mean time to maturation rates were 97.08% (95% CI, 95.66-98.04), 82.13% (95% CI, 71.64-89.32), 0.80 (95% CI, 0.34-1.47), and 58 days (95% CI, 36.64-92.82), respectively. Secondary patency and pAVF abandonment rates where the only end points were WavelinQ and Ellipsys displayed statistically significant differences of 81.36% (95% CI, 76.15-85.65) versus 92.12% (95% CI, 87.94-94.93) and 32.54% (95% CI, 22.23-44.87) versus 11.13% (95% CI, 4.82-23.65). An IPD meta-analysis of hazard ratios for primary and secondary patency between pAVF and sAVF were 1.27 (95% CI, 0.61-2.67) and 1.25 (95% CI, 0.87-1.80), favoring sAVF. Statistically significant difference between pAVF and sAVF were solely depicted for steal syndrome relative risk of 5.91 (95% CI, 1.12-31.12) and wound infections relative risk of 4.19 (95% CI, 1.04-16.88). Plotting of pAVF smoothed hazard estimate displayed an upsurge in the probability of primary patency failure at 1 month after the intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Although we failed to identify statistically significant differences between pAVF and sAVF regarding any of the primary end points, pAVF displayed a decreased risk for steal syndrome and wound infection. Although both the Ellipsys and WavelinQ devices displayed satisfactory secondary patency rates, Ellipsys demonstrated a statistically significant improved rate compared with WavelinQ. Additionally, and despite the borderline statistically insignificant inferior reintervention rate displayed by WavelinQ, one in three WavelinQ pAVFs resulted in abandonment. The introduction of pAVF as a treatment modality calls for standardized definition adjustment and improvement.

Percutaneous endovascular arteriovenous fistula: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

Currently, percutaneous endovascular creation of arteriovenous fistula (AVF) shows excellent outcomes. However, few systematic research evidence to support clinical decision making on the benefit of endovascular AVF is available. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of endovascular AVF (endoAVF) in patients with renal failure.

Methods

We searched the Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases for studies on endovascular or endovascular versus surgery for the creation of AVF. Two reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed by Review Manager 5.4 software (Revman, The Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, United Kingdom) and Stata 15.0 (Stata Corp, College Station, TX, United States).

Results

A total of 14 case series and 5 cohort studies, with 1,929 patients, were included in this study. The technique success was 98.00% for endoAVF (95% CI, 0.97–0.99; I² = 16.25%). There was no statistically significant difference in 3 cohort studies between endovascular and surgical AVF for procedural success (OR = 0.69; 95% CI, 0.04–11.98; P = 0.80; I² = 53%). The maturation rates of endoAVF were 87.00% (95% CI, 0.79–0.93; I² = 83.96%), and no significant difference was observed in 3 cohort studies between the 2 groups (OR = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.20–2.63; P = 0.63; I² = 88%). Procedure-related complications for endoAVF was 7% (95% CI, 0.04–0.17; I² = 78.31%), and it did not show significant difference in 4 cohort studies between the 2 groups (OR = 1.85; 95% CI, 0.37–9.16; P = 0.45; I² = 59%).

Conclusion

The endovascular creation of AVF is potentially effective and safe. These important data may provide evidence to support clinicians and patients in making decisions with endovascular AVF. But further research is great necessary due to lack of randomized controlled studies.

Percutaneous Hemodialysis Fistula Creation

Two devices have been recently introduced to European Union and North American clinical practice that allow for percutaneous creation of autogenous hemodialysis fistulas (pAVF). Although there are similarities between the devices, there are many differences. Adoption of either or both technologies by an interventionalist may be determined by the individual's comfort with the device. Importantly, current and future outcomes will shape acceptance and use of these devices. This review focuses on the similarities and differences of each device, the procedures, published outcomes to date and their interpretation and other clinical considerations towards initiation of a successful pAVF program.