Monitoring interposition graft venous pressures at higher blood-flow rates improves sensitivity in predicting graft failure

The role of venous pressure variability during hemodialysis in the prediction of impending arteriovenous graft occlusion

BACKGROUND

Elevated venous pressure during hemodialysis (VPHD) is associated with arteriovenous graft (AVG) stenosis. This study investigated the role of VPHD variations in the prediction of impending AVG occlusion.

METHODS

Data were retrieved from 118 operations to treat AVG occlusion (occlusion group) and 149 operations to treat significant AVG stenosis (stenosis group). In addition to analyzing the VPHD values for the three hemodialysis (HD) sessions prior to the intervention, VPHD values were normalized to mean blood pressure (MBP), blood flow rate (BFR), BFR × MBP, and BFR2 × MBP to yield ratios for analysis. The coefficient of variation (CV) was used to measure relative variations.

RESULTS

The within-group comparisons for both groups revealed no significant differences in the VPHD mean and CV values among the three HD sessions prior to intervention. However, the CVs for VPHD/MBP, VPHD/(BFR × MBP), and VPHD/(BFR2 × MBP) exhibited significant elevation in the occlusion group during the last HD session prior to intervention compared with both the penultimate and antepenultimate within-group HD data (p < 0.05). In the receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, the CV for VPHD/(BFR2 × MBP) was the only parameter able to discriminate between the last and the penultimate HD outcomes (p < 0.001). According to a multivariate analysis, after controlling for covariates, CV for VPHD/(BFR2 × MBP) >8.76% was associated with a higher risk of AVG thrombosis (odds ratio: 3.17, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing the variation in VPHD/(BFR2 × MBP) may increase the probability of AVG occlusion.

Regular Monitoring of Access Flow Compared with Monitoring of Venous Pressure Fails to Improve Graft Survival

ABSTRACT. Regular vascular access blood flow (Qa) surveillance is recommended to detect graft stenosis; however, there is little evidence that monitoring and correcting with angioplasty improves graft survival. This blinded, randomized, controlled trial of 112 patients studied time to graft thrombosis and graft loss, comparing monthly Qa plus standard surveillance (dynamic venous pressure and physical examination) (treatment group) to standard surveillance alone (control group). Only the treatment group was referred for angiogram if Qa <650 ml/min or a 20% decrease in Qa from baseline. Percutaneous angioplasty was performed for stenosis >50%. The rate of graft thrombosis per patient-year at risk was 0.41 and 0.51 in the control and treatment groups, respectively. Fifty-one interventions (0.93/patient-years at risk) were performed in the treatment groupversus31 interventions (0.61/patient-years at risk) in the control group. There was no difference in time to graft loss (P= 0.890). In a multivariate analysis, aspirin (ASA) therapy at baseline was associated with an 84% reduction in risk of graft thrombosis (odds ratio [OR], 0.14;P= 0.002). Higher baseline Qa (OR, 0.84;P= 0.05) and longer interval since graft insertion (OR, 0.97;P= 0.07) were associated with a decrease in graft thrombosis. Results reveal that graft surveillance that uses Qa increases the detection of stenosis, compared with standard surveillance; however, intervention with angioplasty does not improve the time to graft thrombosis or time to graft loss. E-mail: louise.moist@lhsc.on.ca

Slow-flow venous pressure for detection of arteriovenous graft malfunction

BACKGROUND

Early detection with elective intervention of malfunctioning arteriovenous (AV) grafts improves access viability. Herein, we evaluated outlet venous pressure (OP), normalized by mean arterial blood pressure (MABP), at varying blood flow (Qb) rates in the detection of venous outlet stenosis.

METHODS

This single-center, observational study included stable dialysis patients with polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) AV grafts. Phase I involved the determination of the optimal Qb (0, 50, 250, or 400 mL/min) and threshold OP/MABP. Sixty-one patients were followed up for 6 months. The primary end point was graft thrombosis. Phase II assessed serial slow-flow pressure (SFpr = OP/MABP at Qb of 50 mL/min) in a larger sample size (N = 152). The primary end point was graft thrombosis. Phase III implemented the use of SFpr monitoring in the detection and correction of outlet lesion(s).

RESULTS

In phase I, 21 patients developed graft thrombosis. The most significant difference in pressure between the functioning and thrombosed grafts was at Qb of 0 mL/min and SFpr. The threshold of OP/MABP at Qb 0 (>0.53) and SFpr (>0.6) were predictive of graft thrombosis. In phase II, 37 of 42 patients with graft thrombosis had SFpr>0.6 (sensitivity 88.1%; specificity 97.2%; positive and negative predictive values were 90.2% and 95.5%, respectively). In phase III, 13 patients with SFpr>0.6 had outlet lesions on angiography.

CONCLUSION

Serial SFpr used in conjunction with angiography and angioplasty provides a strategy for reducing the incidence of thrombosis. This technique has comparable sensitivity and specificity to other existing methods. This technique is both time-efficient and cost-effective.

Buzz in the axilla: a new physical sign in hemodialysis forearm graft evaluation

The value of physical signs in predicting flow rates or polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) hemodialysis graft survival is not well known. Simultaneous physical examination and flow measurements were performed in 67 dialysis patients with PTFE grafts over a period of 1 month. Physical signs included the presence and location of a palpable thrill, location and auscultatory nature of the bruit, and presence or absence of a pulsation. Patients were followed up for 1 year to detect the time to failure defined by angioplasty, clotting, or surgical revision. There was a fair correlation between physical signs and graft flow rates. In a multivariate model, systolic blood pressure, location of the thrill, and patient age were the best predictors of graft flow. During follow-up, there were 68 graft failures (30 grafts, angioplasty alone; 38 grafts, thrombosis followed by interventional or surgical revisions). The median survival of a graft without a thrill in the axilla was 154 days compared with 321 days when a thrill was present (P = 0.05, log-rank test). Dialysis graft physical examination is a useful test to predict graft flows, as well as graft failure. The single best test is the location of the thrill along the venous limb of the graft. Average flow rates for no thrill, thrill but distal to the midarm, and axillary buzz were approximately 500, 750, and 1,000 mL/min, respectively. This single physical sign also correlated with subsequent graft failure and should be incorporated into physical examinations of all dialysis grafts.

Clinical performance characteristics of hemodialysis graft monitoring

BACKGROUND

Regular monitoring of dialysis grafts is recommended, but the value of dialysis graft blood flow monitoring and venous pressures in predicting subsequent outcomes are controversial.

METHODS

Over a period of one month, we performed simultaneous flow and venous pressure monitoring in 71 dialysis patients with polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) grafts. These patients were prospectively followed for one year. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were constructed to evaluate the performance of the various monitoring techniques.

RESULTS

During the period of follow-up, there were 71 graft failures (30 angioplasty alone and 41 thrombosis followed by interventional or surgical revisions). Failed grafts had a lower blood flow rate [799 +/- 452 (SD) mL/min] when compared with those without failure (1019 +/- 485 mL/min, P = 0.05) Single static or dynamic venous-pressure monitoring were not predictive of graft failure. ROC analysis showed poor performance of graft flows in predicting graft failures over the short (30 days, AUC = 0.726, 95% CI, 0.509 to 0.942) and long term (one year, AUC = 0.630, 95% CI, 0.499 to 0.761). An adjustment of graft flows for systolic blood pressure or classification of graft based both on flows and venous pressure did not improve test performance.

CONCLUSIONS

Although dialysis graft blood flow rates are statistically different in patients who have graft failure (graft angioplasty and surgery or thrombosis) versus those who do not, the performance characteristics preclude clinical decision-making from an isolated blood flow or venous pressure study.

Vascular access problems in dialysis patients: pathogenesis and strategies for management

Repetitive hemodialysis was made possible through the development of a chronic means of accessing the circulation. This was accomplished through the use of arteriovenous fistulae or grafts, using autologous veins or synthetic materials. Although the arteriovenous fistula remains the access of choice, synthetic arteriovenous grafts are used in most patients because of problems with late referral to a nephrologist and poor vasculature. This article describes the means of accessing the circulation for hemodialysis, the pathogenesis of access failure through progressive stenosis followed by thrombosis, methods of detecting access dysfunction before thrombosis, and therapeutic options. Although angiographic or surgical intervention remain the mainstays of management, medical treatments to decrease stenosis and delay thrombosis are currently under investigation.