Vascular access in kidney transplant recipients

Differential expression of serum TM, PAF, and CD62P in patients with autologous arteriovenous fistula and the correlation with vascular access function

BACKGROUND

End-stage renal disease (ESRD) is the final stage of chronic kidney disease (CKD).

AIMS

We aimed to analyze the expression differences of serum thrombomodulin (TM), platelet-activating factor (PAF), and P-selectin (CD62P) in patients with autologous arteriovenous fistula (AVF) and the correlation with vascular access function.

METHODS

The case data were retrospectively analyzed. Moreover, 160 patients with AVF maintenance hemodialysis were selected as the AVF group, and 150 healthy participants were selected as the healthy control group. According to the function of vascular access, patients in the AVF group were divided into Group A (n = 50, after the first establishment of AVF), Group B (n = 64, normal vascular access function after hemodialysis treatment), and Group C (n = 46, vascular access failure). Pearson analysis was conducted to explore the correlation between serum TM, PAF, CD62P content, and vascular pathological examination indicators, to evaluate the value of TM, PAF, and CD62P levels in predicting vascular access failure in patients with AVF.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The serum levels of TM, PAF, and CD62P were positively correlated with the expressions of CD68 and MCP-1, respectively (p < .001). Serum TM was positively correlated with the levels of PAF and CD62P (p < .001), and PAF was positively correlated with the levels of CD62P (p < .001), respectively. Serum levels of TM, PAF and CD62P were risk factors for vascular access failure in AVF patients (p < .05). The area under the curve of serum TM, PAF and CD62P levels in predicting vascular access failure in AVF patients was 0.879.

CONCLUSION

The serum levels of TM, PAF, and CD62P in AVF patients were correlated with the vascular access function of AVF patients, which was very important for maintaining the stability of vascular access function, and had certain value in predicting vascular access failure/disorder in AVF patients, and could be popularized and applied.

Management of an aneurysmal arteriovenous fistula in kidney transplant recipients

Aneurysms remain the most common complication of an arteriovenous fistula created for dialysis access. The management of an aneurysmal arteriovenous fistula (AAVF) in kidney transplant recipients remains contentious with a lack of clear clinical guidelines. Recipients of a functioning graft do not require the fistula for dialysis access, however risk of graft failure and needing the access at a future date must be considered. In this review we outline the current evidence in the assessment and management of a transplant recipient with an AAVF. We will describe our recommended five-step approach to assessing an AAVF in transplant patients; 1.) Define AAVF 2.) Risk assess AAVF 3.) Assess transplant graft function and future graft failure risk 4.) Consider future renal replacement therapy options 5.) Vascular mapping to assess future vascular access options. Then we will describe the current therapeutic options and when they would most appropriately be employed.

Dialysis after kidney transplant failure: how to deal with this daunting task?

The best treatment for patients with end-stage kidney disease is kidney transplantation, which, if successful provides both a reduction in mortality and a better quality of life compared to dialysis. Although there has been significant improvement in short-term outcomes after kidney transplantation, long-term graft survival still remains insufficient. As a result, there has been an increase in the number of individuals who need dialysis again after kidney transplant failure, and increasingly contribute to kidney transplant waiting lists. Starting dialysis after graft failure is a difficult task not only for the patients, but also for the nephrologists and the care team. Furthermore, recommendations for management of dialysis after kidney graft loss are lacking. Aim of this narrative review is to provide a perspective on the role of dialysis in the management of patients with failed kidney allograft. Although numerous studies have reported higher mortality in patients undergoing dialysis following kidney allograft failure, reports are contrasting. A patient-centered, individualized approach should drive the choices of initiating dialysis, dialysis modality, maintenance of immunosuppressive drugs and vascular access.

Use of arteriovenous fistula in peritoneal dialysis in France (RDPLF data

There is a consensus not to systematically create arteriovenous fistula (AVF) in patients treated with peritoneal dialysis. We wanted to verify in the French Language Peritoneal Dialysis Register (RDPLF) database what the practices are in France. We selected patients who stopped peritoneal dialysis between December 2016 and December 2021 and who, before their peritoneal dialysis treatment, had not been treated with hemodialysis or transplant before. Only 5.2% of patients had an AVF during PD, and 86.7% of these did not use it. Of the patients who did not have AVF, however, 38% were transferred to hemodialysis, often with a central venous catheter. While it is probably important to have a predictive algorithm to avoid definitive transfers in hemodialysis with a central venous catheter when this transfer can be planned, this report confirms the pointlessness of creating a systematic vascular access in PD, particularly when there is a kidney transplant project.

A national cohort study on hemodialysis arteriovenous fistulas after kidney transplantation - long-term patency, use and complications

OBJECTIVE

To describe the long-term hemodialysis arteriovenous fistula (AVF) patency, incidence of AVF use, incidence and nature of AVF complications and surgery in patients after kidney transplantation.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analysed the AVF outcome and complications in all adult kidney allograft recipients transplanted between January 1st, 2000 and December 31, 2015 with a functional AVF at the time of transplantation. Follow-up was until December 31, 2019.

RESULTS

We included 626 patients. Median AVF follow-up was 4.9 years. One month after kidney transplantation estimated AVF patency rate was 90%, at 1 year it was 82%, at 3 years it was 70% and at 5 years it was 61%; median estimated AVF patency was 7.9 years. The main cause of AVF failure was spontaneous thrombosis occurring in 76% of AVF failure cases, whereas 24% of AVFs were ligated or extirpated. In a Cox multivariate model female sex and grafts were independently associated with more frequent AVF thrombosis. AVF was used in about one third of our patients. AVF-related complications occurred in 29% of patients and included: growing aneurysms, complicated thrombosis, high-flow AVF, signs of distal hypoperfusion, venous hypertension, trauma of the AVF arm, or pain in the AVF/arm.

CONCLUSIONS

AVFs remain functional after kidney transplantation in the majority of patients and are often re-used after graft failure. AVF-related complications are common and require proper care.

The impact of location and patency of the arteriovenous fistula on quality of life of kidney transplant recipients

Background

Arteriovenous fistulae (AVFs) may remain patent after kidney transplantation (KTx), contributing to maladaptive cardiac remodeling. The flow in AVFs is associated with the diameter of its vessels and thus with the AVF location. The main objective of this study is to assess the influence of AVF location and its patency on the self-reported quality of life (QOL) of kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) with past history of hemodialysis.

Methods

To gain clinical data, during a scheduled visit, 353 KTRs were asked to fill out an anonymous questionnaire. From this group, 284 respondents were found eligible for analysis. The outcome was defined as prevalence of symptoms and health status, measured with the Left Ventricular Dysfunction-36 (LVD-36) Questionnaire in symptomatic patients.

Results

The hemodialysis patients (n = 243) were divided into two groups according to AVF location, i.e., DAVF – distally located AVF – (n = 174) and PAVF – proximally located AVF – (n = 69). The proportion of patients with heart failure (HF) was higher in PAVF group (24% vs. 12%, p = 0.0482). In the multivariable regression, PAVF, serum creatinine levels, and the presence of HF or coronary artery disease (CAD) remained independent predictors of lower functional capacity. Among patients with heart disease, the presence of active AVF was independently associated with worse functional outcome (higher LVD-36 scores).

Conclusions

The influence of persistent PAVF in KTRs seems to be unfavorable, especially when coexisting with CAD or HF. Abbreviations: AVF arteriovenous fistula; BMI body mass index; CAD coronary artery disease; D-AVF distally-located arteriovenous fistula; EC exercise capacity; HD hemodialysis; HF heart failure; KTx kidney transplantation; KTR kidney transplant recipient; LVD-36 Left Ventricle Disfunction – 36; LVEF left ventricle ejection fraction; LVH left ventricle hypertrophy; NYHA New York Heart Association; P-AVF proximally located arteriovenous fistula; PD peritoneal dialysis; PRO patient-reported outcomes; QOL quality of life.

Vascular Access Perspectives in Patients After Kidney Transplantation

Introduction: More attention has been paid to the influence of arteriovenous fistula (AVF) on the cardiovascular system. In renal transplant recipients, some beneficial effect of an elective vascular access (VA) ligation was observed in patients with a high AVF flow. However, this strategy is not widely accepted and is in contradiction to the rule of vasculature preservation for possible future access. The aim of our study is to elucidate the vascular access function and VA perspective in the kidney transplantation (KTx) population.

Materials and Methods: KTx patients with a stable graft function were recruited to participate in this single center observational study (NCT04478968). The measurement of VA flow and vessel mapping for future vascular access was performed by a color Doppler ultrasound. The study group included 99 (63%) males and 58 (37%) females; the median age was 57 (IQR 48–64) years. The median time from the transplantation to the baseline visit was 94 (IQR 61–149) months. Median serum creatinine concentration was 1.36 (IQR 1.13–1.67) mg/dl.

Results: Functioning VA was found in 83 out of 157 (52.9%) patients. The sites were as follows: snuffbox in six (7.2%), wrist in 41 (49.4%), distal forearm in 18 (21.7%), middle or proximal forearm in eight (9.6%), upper-arm AV graft in one (1.2%), and upper-arm AVFs in nine (10.8%) patients, respectively. Blood flow ranged from 248 to 7,830 ml/min; the median was 1,134 ml/min. From the transplantation to the study visit, 66 (44.6%) patients experienced access loss. Spontaneous thrombosis was the most common, and it occurred in 60 (90.9%) patients. The surgical closure of VA was performed only in six (4%) patients of the study group with a functioning VA at the time of transplantation. Access loss occurred within the 1st year after KTx in 33 (50%) patients. Majority (50 out of 83, 60.2%) of the patients with an active VA had options to create a snuffbox or wrist AVF on the contralateral extremity. In a group of 74 patients without a functioning VA, the creation of a snuffbox or wrist AVF on the non-dominant and dominant extremity was possible in seven (9.2%) and 40 (52.6%) patients, respectively. In 10 (13.1%) patients, the possibilities were limited only to the upper-arm or proximal forearm VA on both sides. Access ligation was considered by 15 out of 83 (18.1%) patients with a patent VA.

Conclusions: In the majority of the patients, vascular access blood flow was below the threshold of the negative cardiovascular effect of vascular access. Creation of a distal AVF is a protective measure to avoid a high flow and preserve the vessels for future access. The approach to VA should be individualized and adjusted to the patient's profile.

Clinical characteristics of 31 hemodialysis patients with 2019 novel coronavirus: a retrospective study

Aim

Novel coronavirus pneumonia (COVID-19) has become pandemic. It brings serious threat to hemodialysis (HD) patients. Therefore, we carried out a study on the clinical characteristics of HD patients with COVID-19.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed the data of 31 HD patients with COVID-19. The clinical features of patients include epidemiology, clinical symptoms, laboratory and imaging test, treatment and prognosis.

Results

61.3% were severe, and 38.7% were mild. 83.9% had a close contact history with COVID-19 patients. The average age was 62.3 years comprising of 58.1% men and 41.9% women. Ninety percent had chronic diseases except ESRD. Clinical symptoms include cough (85%), fever (43%), and shortness of breath (48.4%), etc. Complications included ARDS (25.8%), AHF (22.6%), and septic shock (16.1%), etc. 64.5% of patients had remission, and 35.5% of patients had no remission with 6.5% deaths. Compared with the baseline before infection, HD patients with COVID-19 had lower lymphocytes, albumin and glucose, and higher D-dimer, albumin, phosphorus, lactate dehydrogenase, and CRP. There was no significant correlation between the neutrophils/lymphocytes ratio and the severity of the disease.

Conclusions

Compared with the reported general population, the HD patients are susceptible to COVID-19 infection, especially older men and those with other underlying diseases. Moreover, HD patients have more severe infection and inflammation with less symptoms and worse outcome. COVID-19 infection can cause dialysis patients lower immunity, stronger inflammation, malnutrition, and internal environment disorder. Neutrophils/lymphocytes ratio does not reflect the severity of the HD patients with COVID-19.