Clinical practice guidelines recommend an arteriovenous fistula as the preferred vascular access for hemodialysis, but quantitative associations between vascular access type and various clinical outcomes remain controversial. We performed a systematic review of cohort studies to evaluate the associations between type of vascular access (arteriovenous fistula, arteriovenous graft, and central venous catheter) and risk for death, infection, and major cardiovascular events. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and article reference lists and extracted data describing study design, participants, vascular access type, clinical outcomes, and risk for bias. We identified 3965 citations, of which 67 (62 cohort studies comprising 586,337 participants) met our inclusion criteria. In a random effects meta-analysis, compared with persons with fistulas, those individuals using catheters had higher risks for all-cause mortality (risk ratio=1.53, 95% CI=1.41-1.67), fatal infections (2.12, 1.79-2.52), and cardiovascular events (1.38, 1.24-1.54). Similarly, compared with persons with grafts, those individuals using catheters had higher risks for mortality (1.38, 1.25-1.52), fatal infections (1.49, 1.15-1.93), and cardiovascular events (1.26, 1.11-1.43). Compared with persons with fistulas, those individuals with grafts had increased all-cause mortality (1.18, 1.09-1.27) and fatal infection (1.36, 1.17-1.58), but we did not detect a difference in the risk for cardiovascular events (1.07, 0.95-1.21). The risk for bias, especially selection bias, was high. In conclusion, persons using catheters for hemodialysis seem to have the highest risks for death, infections, and cardiovascular events compared with other vascular access types, and patients with usable fistulas have the lowest risk. J Am Soc Nephrol 24: 465-473, 2013. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2012070643

Associations between hemodialysis access type and clinical outcomes: A systematic review

Strippoli G.;
2013

Abstract

Clinical practice guidelines recommend an arteriovenous fistula as the preferred vascular access for hemodialysis, but quantitative associations between vascular access type and various clinical outcomes remain controversial. We performed a systematic review of cohort studies to evaluate the associations between type of vascular access (arteriovenous fistula, arteriovenous graft, and central venous catheter) and risk for death, infection, and major cardiovascular events. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and article reference lists and extracted data describing study design, participants, vascular access type, clinical outcomes, and risk for bias. We identified 3965 citations, of which 67 (62 cohort studies comprising 586,337 participants) met our inclusion criteria. In a random effects meta-analysis, compared with persons with fistulas, those individuals using catheters had higher risks for all-cause mortality (risk ratio=1.53, 95% CI=1.41-1.67), fatal infections (2.12, 1.79-2.52), and cardiovascular events (1.38, 1.24-1.54). Similarly, compared with persons with grafts, those individuals using catheters had higher risks for mortality (1.38, 1.25-1.52), fatal infections (1.49, 1.15-1.93), and cardiovascular events (1.26, 1.11-1.43). Compared with persons with fistulas, those individuals with grafts had increased all-cause mortality (1.18, 1.09-1.27) and fatal infection (1.36, 1.17-1.58), but we did not detect a difference in the risk for cardiovascular events (1.07, 0.95-1.21). The risk for bias, especially selection bias, was high. In conclusion, persons using catheters for hemodialysis seem to have the highest risks for death, infections, and cardiovascular events compared with other vascular access types, and patients with usable fistulas have the lowest risk. J Am Soc Nephrol 24: 465-473, 2013. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2012070643
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/11586/243798
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 137
  • Scopus 434
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 414
social impact