Automated intravascular access pressure surveillance reduces thrombosis rates

Reassessing the utility of access recirculation and Kt/V for the prediction of arteriovenous fistula failure using online clearance monitoring: the SHUNT STUDY

BACKGROUND

The arteriovenous fistula (AVF) is prone to thrombosis which can be avoided by use of monitoring and surveillance programmes. Although surveillance imaging techniques have been shown to be more sensitive and specific than clinical monitoring during dialysis, monitoring may have significant advantages in terms of cost and time saving. In this study we evaluate the yield of two monitoring techniques [blood temperature monitoring (BTM) access recirculation (AR) and Kt/V via online-clearance-monitoring (OCM)].

METHODS

In this single-centre prospective observational study, 101 patients were followed-up for one year. The primary outcome measure was a composite of AVF failure. OCM-Kt/V and BTM-AR were recorded at every dialysis session.

RESULTS

Of all baseline characteristics only a prior history of percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) to the AVF conferred a significant change in AVF survival (failure events/100 pt years with prior PTA vs. without = 64.0 vs. 17.3, log-rank p = 0.0014; unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) 3.74 (95% CI 1.56-8.94) p = 0.003). Participants with baseline AR < 10% vs. > 15% had poorer AVF survival (p = 0.0002) and HR for baseline AR 10-15% group vs. AR > 15% group = 4.5 (95% CI 1.55-13.05). There was no combination of change in (Δ) AR, ΔKt/V or its presence over any number of dialysis sessions that provided an acceptable combination of sensitivity and specificity or discrimination for AVF failure.

CONCLUSIONS

BTM-AR and OCM-Kt/V are specific but insufficiently sensitive tools for the prediction of AVF failure. BTM-AR and OCM-Kt/V use at every dialysis session appears to add little to the traditional, infrequent use of these evaluations.

Development and validation of a risk score to prioritize patients for evaluation of access stenosis

Background

Access flow dysfunction, often associated with stenosis, is a common problem in hemodialysis access and may result in progression to thrombosis. Timely identification of accesses in need of evaluation is critical to preserving a functioning access. We hypothesized that a risk score using measurements obtained from the Vasc‐Alert surveillance device could be used to predict subsequent interventions.

Methods

Measurement of five factors over the preceding 28 days from 1.46 million hemodialysis treatments (6163 patients) were used to develop a score associated with interventions over the subsequent 60 days. The score was validated in a separate dataset of 298,620 treatments (2641 patients).

Results

Interventions in arteriovenous fistulae (AVF; n = 4125) were much more common in those with the highest score (36.2%) than in those with the lowest score (11.0). The score also was strongly associated with interventions in patients with an arteriovenous graft (AVG; n = 2,038; 43.2% vs. 21.1%). There was excellent agreement in the Validation datasets for AVF (OR = 2.67 comparing the highest to lowest score) and good agreement for AVG (OR = 1.92).

Conclusions

This simple risk score based on surveillance data may be useful for prioritizing patients for physical examination and potentially early referral for intervention.

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.

Vascular Access Monitoring and Surveillance: An Update

Vascular access in dialysis patients remains both a critical link to survival and a significant source of morbidity. Currently, the National Kidney Foundation Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative (NKF-KDOQI) vascular access guidelines recommend routine vascular access monitoring and encourage dedicated surveillance techniques to be used for early detection of access stenosis and prevention of thrombosis. There is a paucity of clear evidence supporting 1 surveillance technique over another. The purpose of this review is to describe the benefits and limitations of various surveillance techniques commonly used in the care of dialysis patients. Further studies in this area will be useful to determine the most appropriate combination of aggressive clinical monitoring and additional surveillance data to strike a balance between graft thrombosis and unnecessary vascular interventions.

Translesional pressure ratio predicts technical outcome and patency in angioplasty on outflow stenosis of hemodialysis graft

PURPOSE

Translesional pressure ratio (TLPR) indicating fractional flow reserve has been applied to physiological assessment of moderate coronary stenosis. The role of TLPR in hemodialysis (HD) patients with arteriovenous graft (AVG) outflow stenosis undergoing percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) is unclear. The purpose of the study was to assess the validation of TLPR in such patients undergoing PTA.

METHODS

Patients with pure AVG outflow stenosis confirmed by angiography were prospectively enrolled. A TLPR defined as a ratio of the mean pressure downstream to the lesion(s) to the vein-sided intragraft pressure was measured using a catheter pullback method. Relationship among TLPR, angiographic result and clinical outcome within 6 months was detected.

RESULTS

Of 65 PTAs, the post-PTA TLPR significantly increased (from 0.28±0.10 to 0.50±0.11; p<0.0001). A significantly greater pre-PTA TLPR was observed in the simple lesions at baseline compared with the complex lesions (0.32±0.09 vs. 0.20±0.06; p<0.0001). Post-PTA TLPR ≥0.5 was powerfully related to angiographic success (p<0.0001). The group with angiographic success plus post-PTA TLPR ≥0.5 had a longer PTA-free patency (208.7±188.7 vs. 109.8±67.7 days; p=0.013) compared with that with angiographic nonsuccess plus post-PTA TLPR <0.5.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data show that TLPR correlates well with lesion properties and angiographic results, and helps predict following unassisted patency. The study suggests TLPR as a hemodynamic indicator during PTA.

Diagnosis of arteriovenous fistula dysfunction

Arteriovenous fistula (AVF) dysfunction remains a major contributor to the morbidity and mortality of hemodialysis patients. The failure of a newly created AVF to mature and development of stenosis in an established AVF are two common clinical predicaments. The goal is to identify a dysfunctional AVF early enough to intervene in a timely manner to either assist with the maturation process or to prevent thrombosis. The currently available tools in our armamentarium include clinical evaluation, physical examination of the AVF, and surveillance tests. Physical examination has been recognized as a simple and cost-effective tool, but is often not implemented either because of lack of training or time constraints. Surveillance tests include measurement of access flow or pressure as a surrogate marker of AVF dysfunction. Surveillance tests often require expensive equipment, additional personnel, and are controversial. Currently, there are guidelines and recommendations to include all of these measures while evaluating an AVF. Implementing judicious use of these tools in clinical practice can facilitate early diagnosis for timely intervention in the appropriate population. Furthermore, this strategy may avoid unnecessary interventions and assist with healthcare cost containment.

Surveillance and monitoring of dialysis access

Vascular access is the lifeline of a hemodialysis patient. Currently arteriovenous fistula and graft are considered the permanent options for vascular access. Monitoring and surveillance of vascular access are an integral part of the care of hemodialysis patient. Although different techniques and methods are available for identifying access dysfunction, the scientific evidence for the optimal methodology is lacking. A small number of randomized controlled trials have been performed evaluating different surveillance techniques. We performed a study of the recent literature published in the PUBMED, to review the scientific evidence on different methodologies currently being used for surveillance and monitoring and their impact on the care of the dialysis access. The limited randomized studies especially involving fistulae and small sample size of the published studies with conflicting results highlight the need for a larger multicentered randomized study with hard clinical end points to evaluate the optimal surveillance strategy for both fistula and graft.

Vascular access surveillance: an ongoing controversy

Hemodialysis vascular access surveillance continues to be widely recommended despite ongoing controversy as to its benefit in prolonging access patency compared with clinical monitoring alone. The most common screening tests are access blood flow and dialysis venous pressure measurements. When surveillance test results cross a predetermined threshold, accesses are referred for intervention with correction of stenosis to reduce future thrombosis and prolong access survival. Current surveillance strategies have four components: (1) underlying condition; (2) screening test; (3) intervention; and (4) outcomes. However, limitations exist within each component that may prevent achieving the desired outcomes. This review discusses these limitations and their consequences. To date, randomized controlled trials have not consistently shown that surveillance improves outcomes in grafts, and there is limited evidence that surveillance reduces thrombosis without prolonging the life of native fistulae. In conclusion, current evidence does not support the concept that all accesses should undergo routine surveillance with intervention.