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.

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.

Endovascular arteriovenous fistulas- are they the answer we haven't been looking for?

INTRODUCTION

Surgically created arteriovenous fistulas are the accepted gold standard for the establishment of hemodialysis access in patients requiring dialysis. However, primary and maturation failures may limit their usage. Recent advances in endovascular technology have resulted in the creation of devices for endovascular arteriovenous fistula formation. These devices may offer an additional or alternative approach to fistula formation in patients with end-stage kidney disease.

AREAS COVERED

This review describes the limitations of surgical arteriovenous fistulas and the endovascular devices currently available. The review covers initial trial data and subsequent studies examining their use.

EXPERT OPINION

Early results achieved with endovascular fistula formation are encouraging. Current limitations of this technology include anatomic suitability and a high rate of re-interventions required to establish maturity. Greater uptake of the technology will also require a review of long-term outcomes in larger patient cohorts.