Are continued policies of prioritizing native vascular access in patients on hemodialysis programs useful?

Abstract

AV access; dialysis; Native vascular access; Survival

Acceso AV; diálisis; Acceso vascular nativo; Supervivencia

Accés AV; Diàlisi; Accés vascular natiu; Supervivència

The guidelines recommend establishing native vascular access as opposed to prosthetic or catheter-based access despite information relating to its effectiveness being scarce from a patient-orientated perspective. We analyzed the effectiveness of a continued policy of native vascular access (CPNVA) in patients undergoing hemodialysis. A retrospective, observational study, including 150 patients undergoing hemodialysis between 2006 and 2012 at our center, and who underwent a CPNVA. Statistical analysis was based on treatment intention. In 138 patients (92%), the first useful access (FUA) was native, and in 12 patients (8%), it was prosthetic. In 50 patients (33.3%), more than one procedure had to be carried out in to order to achieve FUA. The probability of dialysis occurring via a FUA was 67.1% and 45.3% at 1 and 5 years respectively. Over the follow-up period (mean time = 30 months), 84 patients (56%) required repairs or new access, extending the effectiveness of the CPNVA to 88.3% and 73.2% at 1 and 5 years respectively. The effectiveness of the CPNVA was reduced if the patient: required a catheter initially (HR: 3.6, p = 0.007); in cases of initially elevated glomerular filtration rate (HR: 1.1, p = 0.040); in cases of history of previous access failure before FUA (HR: 3.9, p = 0.001); and in female patients (HR: 2.4, p = 0.031). The long-term effectiveness of a CPNVA is high. However, the percentage of patients requiring diverse procedures in order to achieve FUA and the need for re-interventions yield the necessity to optimize preoperative evaluation and postoperative follow-up.