Rapid intervention team strategy improves intervention quality for patients undergoing hemodialysis with arteriovenous shunt dysfunction or failure

BACKGROUND

Vascular access dysfunction is a great burden for hemodialysis patients. Early intervention of a dysfunctional arteriovenous shunt is associated with higher technical success and may improve midterm patency. This trial aimed to estimate the feasibility of a new system, the "rapid intervention team" (RIT) strategy.

METHODS

We recruited hemodialysis patients who visited our hospital because of arteriovenous shunt dysfunction or failure to undergo an RIT strategy from September 1, 2019 to December 31, 2022. In addition, we included a control group comprising patients who underwent percutaneous intervention for arteriovenous shunt dysfunction or failure before this strategy was implemented from February 1, 2017 to December 31, 2022. Case number, time to intervention, all-cause mortality, cumulative survival rate, and number of patients who required temporary dialysis catheter insertion and recreation were compared between the two groups. The primary endpoints were double-lumen insertion, a composite outcome involving permanent catheter insertion, and the need for recreation. The secondary endpoint was all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

We enrolled 1054 patients, including 544 (51.6%) and 510 (48.4%) in the RIT and control groups, respectively. Even with the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the number of cases significantly increased after the implementation of the RIT strategy (from 216 in 2019 to 828 in 2022, p for trend <0.001). The RIT group had a shortened time to intervention ( p for trend <0.001). The implementation of the RIT strategy was significantly associated with a reduced risk of insertion of a temporary double-lumen catheter and recreation of vascular access (1% vs 6% and 1% vs 28%, respectively; both p < 0.01). The cumulative survival rate was not significantly different between the RIT and control groups ( p = 0.16).

CONCLUSION

The implementation of the RIT strategy improves the quantity and quality of percutaneous transluminal intervention for arteriovenous shunt dysfunction or failure in patients undergoing hemodialysis.

Optiflow anastomotic device for hemodialysis vascular access creation

The need to have consistent methods and consistent technique to optimize hemodialysis outcomes is behind the concept of the Optiflow™ device. This device was created to allow for consistency in size of the arterial anastomosis and consistency in angle of the vein to the artery at the anastomosis. Early data suggest that allowing these two technical entities can improve outcomes in regards to flow and maturity in arteriovenous fistula creation. This article is a summary of early data that demonstrate the impact the Optiflow device on brachial cephalic fistulas.

Arteriovenous Fistula Creation Using the Optiflow™ Vascular Anastomotic Connector: The Open (Optiflow PatEncy and MaturatioN) Study

Purpose

Arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs) are the preferred form of vascular access for hemodialysis. However, non-maturation and patency are major clinical problems. The Optiflow™ device is an implantable anastomotic connector used to standardize the creation of an AVF. Studies have suggested that the geometry of the anastomosis and experience of the surgeon impact patency and maturation rates. The Optiflow serves as a surgical template whereby the geometry and flow path of the anastomosis are predetermined. This prospective study was intended to evaluate maturation, patency and safety of the Optiflow.

Methods

Forty-one upper arm AVFs were created in 41 end-stage renal disease patients using the Optiflow device at two investigational sites. Patients were followed for 90 days with serial Doppler ultrasounds performed at approximately 14, 42 and 90 days to determine AVF maturation. The primary performance endpoint was unassisted maturation, defined as an outflow vein that was equal to or greater than 5 mm in diameter, and with flow equal to or greater than 500 mL/min without the need for any intervention intended to promote or maintain maturation. The primary safety endpoint was the rate of device-related serious adverse events.

Results

Unassisted maturation rates were 76%, 72% and 68% and unassisted patency rates were 93%, 88% and 78%, at 14, 42 and 90 days, respectively. There were no device-related serious adverse events.

Conclusions

The results suggest that the Optiflow is safe for its intended use and could play an important role in enhancing AVF maturation while standardizing the anastomotic technique.

Antimicrobial prophylaxis in noncardiac prosthetic device recipients

BACKGROUND

Secondary antimicrobial prophylaxis involves the use of ≥ 1 antimicrobial agent just prior to the time when a diagnostic/therapeutic procedure, which may induce infection, is to be performed. In the context of this article, antimicrobial agent(s) are administered to patients with ≥ 1 implanted prosthetic device in order to prevent metastatic seeding of the device(s) during bacteremia induced by a diagnostic/therapeutic procedure. Antimicrobial agents used in this context are only administered periprocedurally. Secondary antimicrobial prophylaxis of endocarditis in recipients of cardiac prosthetic materials (including valves, shunts, conduits, and patches) has been reasonably well established. However, secondary antimicrobial prophylaxis in recipients of other types of prosthetic devices has been the subject of much controversy, with a wide variety of recommendations being made.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this article was to conduct a narrative review of the published literature on the topic of secondary antimicrobial prophylaxis in recipients of noncardiac prosthetic devices and make evidence-based recommendations for each type of device, where possible.

METHODS

Medline/PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched for English-language articles published from 1950 to the present (January 2012). Search terms included "prophylaxis," "antibiotics," "antimicrobials," "prosthetic devices," "prosthesis-related infections," "bacteremia," the names of the individual types of prosthetic devices, and the names of the individual procedures potentially inducing bacteremia. Articles dealing with any aspect relevant to this topic were eligible for review. The bibliographies of retrieved articles were also carefully scanned to identify any articles not previously identified.

RESULTS

Based on review of the available literature, secondary antimicrobial prophylaxis is justified in only a few specific circumstances. For recipients of prosthetic vascular grafts/stents, hemodialysis arteriovenous shunts, and ventriculoatrial/ventriculovenous shunts, prophylaxis is warranted during the initial 6 months, initial 6 weeks, and at all times after implantation/revision, respectively, when dental procedures capable of inducing high-level bacteremia are planned. Prosthetic joint recipients should receive prophylaxis in the following 3 circumstances: 1) patient is to undergo dental procedure(s) capable of inducing high-level bacteremia plus either the patient is still within 2 years of device implantation/revision or the patient has ≥ 1 risk factor for hematogenous prosthetic joint infection; 2) patient is to undergo genitourinary tract procedure(s) capable of inducing high-level bacteremia plus the patient has ≥ 1 risk factor for high-risk bacteriuria; and 3) patient is to undergo perforating dermatologic surgery on the oral mucosa or at skin sites at increased risk for surgical site infection plus patient has ≥ 1 risk factor for hematogenous prosthetic joint infection. The data are inadequate to justify secondary antimicrobial prophylaxis for recipients of other types of prosthetic devices. On the basis of 9 surveys of prescriber behavior, it is apparent that there exists, over a wide geographic area, a wide disconnect between clinical practice and the secondary antimicrobial prophylaxis guidelines issued by the professional organizations representing these prescribers. Antimicrobial agent overuse was especially problematic among orthopedic and colorectal surgeons, urologists, and family practitioners. Dentists and maxillofacial surgeons followed guidelines more closely.

CONCLUSION

Device-, procedure-, and patient characteristic-dependent factors elicited over many years have narrowed down the secondary antimicrobial prophylaxis recommendations for noncardiac prosthetic devices to a small number. Despite this, physician prescribers frequently do not follow prophylaxis guidelines established by their own professional organizations. Risk-benefit and cost-effectiveness studies have found that no prophylaxis is actually superior to universal prophylaxis, likely due to known antimicrobial toxicities, such as anaphylactic/anaphylactoid reactions and Clostridium difficile-associated disease. Much work remains in establishing and extending the scientific basis for secondary antimicrobial prophylaxis and transforming this knowledge into appropriate action by the clinician.

Outcomes of Arteriovenous Fistulae Compared with Heparin-Bonded and Conventional Grafts for Hemodialysis Access

Purpose

Arteriovenous fistulae (AVF) are the preferred vascular access for hemodialysis patients. However, patients who do not have suitable veins require prosthetic arteriovenous graft (AVG) placement. We analyzed the patency and complication rates of upper extremity brachiocephalic AVF compared to brachioaxillary tapered heparin-bonded AVG and conventional AVG.

Methods

We performed a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent a permanent vascular access procedure at our tertiary referral center from 2006 to 2008. Factors presumed to affect patency and complication rates including age, body-mass index, dyslipidemia, hypertension, and diabetes were analyzed. Complication rates, re-interventions, primary, primary-assisted, and cumulative patency rates were compared using logistic regression analysis.

Results

We performed 138 upper extremity access procedures during the study period, including 64 brachiocephalic fistulae, 21 brachioaxillary heparin-bonded, and 21 brachioaxillary conventional AVGs. Nine patients were excluded from long-term follow-up. The 1-year cumulative patency rates for AVF, heparin-bonded, and conventional AVGs were 83%, 44%, and 67%, respectively (P=.0001). On multivariate regression analysis, only use of heparin-bonded AVG affected cumulative patency.

Conclusions

Although selection bias cannot be excluded in this retrospective study, heparin-bonded AVGs did not perform better than conventional AVGs. Co-morbid conditions did not affect the cumulative patency or complication rates of brachiocephalic AVF or AVG in this analysis. Larger, randomized trials are needed to validate the results of this study.