Multi-omics Analyses Identify AKR1A1 as a Biomarker for Diabetic Kidney Disease.

Diabetic kidney disease (DKD) is the leading cause of end-stage kidney disease. As many genes associate with DKD, multi-omics approaches were employed to narrow the list of functional genes, gene products and related pathways providing insights into the pathophysiological mechanisms of DKD. The Kidney Precision Medicine Project human kidney single-cell RNA-sequencing (scRNAseq) dataset and Mendeley Data on human kidney cortex biopsy proteomics were utilized. R package Seurat was used to analyze scRNAseq and subset proximal tubule cells. PathfindR was applied for pathway analysis in cell type-specific differentially expressed genes and R limma package was used to analyze differential protein expression in kidney cortex. A total of 790 differentially expressed genes were identified in proximal tubule cells, including 530 upregulated and 260 downregulated transcripts. Compared with differentially expressed proteins, 24 genes/proteins were in common. An integrated analysis combining protein quantitative trait loci (pQTL), GWAS hits (estimated glomerular filtration rate) and a plasma metabolomics analysis was performed using baseline metabolites predictive of DKD progression in our longitudinal Diabetes Heart Study samples. Aldo-keto reductase family 1 member A1 gene (AKR1A1) was revealed as a potential molecular hub for DKD cellular dysfunction in several cross-linked pathways featured by deficiency of this enzyme.

Incremental dialysis: two complementary views.

Franco Casino and Mariana Murea discuss today's knowledge about the 'incremental dialysis' concept. Franco Casino frames the problem by saying that, in the presence of substantial residual kidney function, kidney replacement therapy can begin with low doses and/or frequencies, to be gradually increased to compensate for any subsequent losses of residual kidney function, keeping the total clearance above the minimum levels of adequacy. He remarks that studies so far have documented that this approach is safe. He recognizes that adequate randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are necessary to confirm the safety and simplify and standardize the practical aspects of this approach. Mariana Murea objects that most of the evidence gathered so far primarily derives from retrospective and observational studies, which can be influenced by socioeconomic constraints. She argues for the need for RCTs to provide compelling empirical evidence on the efficacy of incremental dialysis. Nephrologists are still reluctant to adopt this approach for various reasons, including unfamiliarity with the method, lack of practical guidance and financial disincentives. Several countries have ongoing or planned RCTs comparing incremental dialysis with conventional dialysis. These trials can shift the haemodialysis paradigm if they validate the safety and effectiveness of this approach. The moderators believe that the results of ongoing trials must be carefully interpreted, and further validation may be needed across different patient populations or healthcare settings. The ultimate goal is to gather robust evidence that could lead to widespread adoption of incremental haemodialysis, optimizing treatment, reducing overtreatment, preserving resources and improving patients' quality of life.

The reasons for comparative effectiveness clinical trials of arteriovenous fistula versus graft strategy in older adults on hemodialysis with a catheter.

Clinicians and patients are guided by observational studies to make one of the most consequential decisions for patients with advanced kidney disease: the selection of the "right" hemodialysis vascular access. More than a decade ago, a call for randomized clinical trials was made to equitably compare clinical outcomes between arteriovenous (AV) fistulas (AVFs) and AV grafts (AVGs). Mounting evidence suggests that trade-offs between AVF- and AVGrelated outcomes are context dependent. In this article, we summarize four streams of evidence that collectively underpin the burden of equipoise between the two types of AV access in older adults with comorbidities who are on hemodialysis with a central venous catheter.

Study protocol of a randomized controlled trial of fistula vs. graft arteriovenous vascular access in older adults with end-stage kidney disease on hemodialysis: the AV access trial.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) with hemodialysis requires surgical creation of an arteriovenous (AV) vascular access-fistula (AVF) or graft (AVG)-to avoid (or limit) the use of a central venous catheter (CVC). AVFs have long been considered the first-line vascular access option, with AVGs as second best. Recent studies have suggested that, in older adults, AVGs may be a better strategy than AVFs. Lacking evidence from well-powered randomized clinical trials, integration of these results into clinical decision making is challenging. The main objective of the AV Access Study is to compare, between the two types of AV access, clinical outcomes that are important to patients, physicians, and policy makers. METHODS: This is a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial in adults ≥ 60 years old receiving chronic hemodialysis via a CVC. Eligible participants must have co-existing cardiovascular disease, peripheral arterial disease, and/or diabetes mellitus; and vascular anatomy suitable for placement of either type of AV access. Participants are randomized, in a 1:1 ratio, to a strategy of AVG or AVF creation. An estimated 262 participants will be recruited across 7 healthcare systems, with average follow-up of 2 years. Questionnaires will be administered at baseline and semi-annually. The primary outcome is the rate of CVC-free days per 100 patient-days. The primary safety outcome is the cumulative incidence of vascular access (CVC or AV access)-related severe infections-defined as access infections that lead to hospitalization or death. Secondary outcomes include access-related healthcare costs and patients' experiences with vascular access care between the two treatment groups. DISCUSSION: In the absence of studies using robust and unbiased research methodology to address vascular access care for hemodialysis patients, clinical decisions are limited to inferences from observational studies. The goal of the AV Access Study is to generate evidence to optimize vascular access care, based on objective, age-specific criteria, while incorporating goals of care and patient preference for vascular access type in clinical decision-making. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is being conducted in accordance with the tenets of the Helsinki Declaration, and has been approved by the central institutional review board (IRB) of Wake Forest University Health Sciences (approval number: 00069593) and local IRB of each participating clinical center; and was registered on Nov 27, 2020, at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04646226).

Living Well With Kidney Disease and Effective Symptom Management: Consensus Conference Proceedings.

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) confers a high burden of uremic symptoms that may be underrecognized, underdiagnosed, and undertreated. Unpleasant symptoms, such as CKD-associated pruritus and emotional/psychological distress, often occur within symptom clusters, and treating 1 symptom may potentially alleviate other symptoms in that cluster. The Living Well with Kidney Disease and Effective Symptom Management Consensus Conference convened health experts and leaders of kidney advocacy groups and kidney networks worldwide to discuss the effects of unpleasant symptoms related to CKD on the health and well-being of those affected, and to consider strategies for optimal symptom management. Optimizing symptom management is a cornerstone of conservative and preservative management which aim to prevent or delay dialysis initiation. In persons with kidney dysfunction requiring dialysis (KDRD), incremental transition to dialysis and home dialysis modalities offer personalized approaches. KDRD is proposed as the preferred term given the negative connotations of "failure" as a kidney descriptor, and the success stories in CKD journeys. Engaging persons with CKD to identify and prioritize their personal values and individual needs must be central to ensure their active participation in CKD management, including KDRD. Person-centered communication and care are required to ensure diversity, equity, and inclusion; education/awareness that considers the health literacy of persons with CKD; and shared decision-making among the person with CKD, care partners, and providers. By putting the needs of people with CKD, including effective symptom management, at the center of their treatment, CKD can be optimally treated in a way that aligns with their goals.

Patient-reported outcomes in a pilot clinical trial of twice-weekly hemodialysis start with adjuvant pharmacotherapy and transition to thrice-weekly hemodialysis vs conventional hemodialysis.

BACKGROUND: Physical and emotional symptoms are prevalent in patients with kidney-dysfunction requiring dialysis (KDRD) and the rigors of thrice-weekly hemodialysis (HD) may contribute to deteriorated health-related quality of life. Less intensive HD schedules might be associated with lower symptom and/or emotional burden. METHODS: The TWOPLUS Pilot study was an individually-randomized trial conducted at 14 dialysis units, with the primary goal to assess feasibility and safety. Patients with incident KDRD and residual kidney function were assigned to incremental HD start (twice-weekly HD for 6 weeks followed by thrice-weekly HD) vs conventional HD (thrice-weekly HD). In exploratory analyses, we compared the two treatment groups with respect to three patient-reported outcomes measures. We analyzed the change from baseline in the score on Dialysis Symptom Index (DSI, range 0-150), Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7, range 0-21), and Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9, range 0-27) at 6 (n = 20 in each treatment group) and 12 weeks (n = 21); with lower scores denoting lower symptom burden. Analyses were adjusted for age, race, gender, baseline urine volume, diabetes mellitus, and malignancy. Participants' views on the intervention were sought using a Patient Feedback Questionnaire (n = 14 in incremental and n = 15 in conventional group). RESULTS: The change from baseline to week 6 in estimated mean score (standard error; P value) in the incremental and conventional group was - 9.7 (4.8; P = 0.05) and - 13.8 (5.0; P = 0.009) for DSI; - 1.9 (1.0; P = 0.07) and - 1.5 (1.4; P = 0.31) for GAD-7; and - 2.5 (1.1; P = 0.03) and - 3.5 (1.5; P = 0.02) for PHQ-9, respectively. Corresponding changes from week 6 to week 12 were - 3.1 (3.2; P = 0.34) and - 2.4 (5.5; P = 0.67) in DSI score; 0.5 (0.6; P = 0.46) and 0.1 (0.6; P = 0.87) in GAD-7 score; and - 0.3 (0.6; P = 0.70) and - 0.5 (0.6; P = 0.47) in PHQ-9 score, respectively. Majority of respondents felt their healthcare was not jeopardized and expressed their motivation for study participation was to help advance the care of patients with KDRD. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests a possible mitigating effect of twice-weekly HD start on symptoms of anxiety and depression at transition from pre-dialysis to KDRD. Larger clinical trials are required to rigorously test clinically-matched incrementally-prescribed HD across diverse organizations and patient populations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with study identifier NCT03740048, registration date 14/11/2018.

A Single-Center Experience with Forearm Arteriovenous Loop Grafts for Hemodialysis.

BACKGROUND: Autogenous arteriovenous fistula (AVF) remains the standard of hemodialysis (HD) access; however, it cannot be reasonably obtained in all patients. For patients with contraindications to AVFs, prosthetic arteriovenous graft (AVG) remains an alternative. AVGs are plagued by high failure rates; however, there is a paucity of literature examining this. This study aims to examine a single-center review of outcomes of forearm loop AVGs in patients requiring HD access. METHODS: A single institution, retrospective chart review was completed from 2012 to 2019, including demographics, end-stage renal disease etiology, brachial vessel diameters, and comorbidities. Logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard models were evaluated. Outcomes were defined as primary patency (time elapsed from graft creation until it was utilized as the patient's primary access), primary-assisted patency (time from primary access to intervention to maintain patency), and functional patency (time from graft placement until graft failure). Additionally, multinomial regression models were used to evaluate associations with categorical number of required interventions. RESULTS: Ninety-eight patients [mean age 61.8 (13.9) years, 42.9% female] were identified as having brachial artery to brachial vein AVG creation during the study period, of which 75% achieved primary patency. Primary-assisted patency was 0.36 [standard error (SE) 0.07] at 6 months and 0.12 (SE 0.05) at 1 year. Functional patency was 0.75 (SE 0.07) at 6 months and 0.43 (SE 0.09) at 1 year. No association between preoperative vessel diameters and primary-assisted or functional patency was observed. Interestingly, there was a significant negative association between previous ipsilateral access and achievement of primary patency with a 60% decrease in odds of achieving primary patency in patients with previous ipsilateral access [odds ratio 0.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.1-0.9, P = 0.03]. There was also noted to be a significant association between the presence of an ipsilateral catheter and increased risk of subsequent abandonment of the AVG (hazard ratio 2.6, 95% CI 1.1-5.8, P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Prosthetic forearm loop AVGs remain hindered in their utility as they show high rates of graft failure within a year of creation. A significant patient-specific factor leading to this was not clearly demonstrated. As guidelines change regarding the nature of dialysis access for patients on HD, these results draw into question the utility of prosthetic forearm loop grafts in patients requiring long-term HD access.

Does delivering more dialysis improve clinical outcomes? What randomized controlled trials have shown.

Some randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have sought to determine whether different dialysis techniques, dialysis doses and frequencies of treatment are able to improve clinical outcomes in end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). Virtually all of these RCTs were enacted on the premise that 'more' haemodialysis might improve clinical outcomes compared to 'conventional' haemodialysis. Aim of the present narrative review was to analyse these landmark RCTs by posing the following question: were their intervention strategies (i.e., earlier dialysis start, higher haemodialysis dose, intensive haemodialysis, increase in convective transport, starting haemodialysis with three sessions per week) able to improve clinical outcomes? The answer is no. There are at least two main reasons why many RCTs have failed to demonstrate the expected benefits thus far: (1) in general, RCTs included relatively small cohorts and short follow-ups, thus producing low event rates and limited statistical power; (2) the designs of these studies did not take into account that ESKD does not result from a single disease entity: it is a collection of different diseases and subtypes of kidney dysfunction. Patients with advanced kidney failure requiring dialysis treatment differ on a multitude of levels including residual kidney function, biochemical parameters (e.g., acid base balance, serum electrolytes, mineral and bone disorder), and volume overload. In conclusion, the different intervention strategies of the RCTs herein reviewed were not able to improve clinical outcomes of ESKD patients. Higher quality studies are needed to guide patients and clinicians in the decision-making process. Future RCTs should account for the heterogeneity of patients when considering inclusion/exclusion criteria and study design, and should a priori consider subgroup analyses to highlight specific subgroups that can benefit most from a particular intervention.

The spectrum of kidney dysfunction requiring chronic dialysis therapy: Implications for clinical practice and future clinical trials.

Staging to capture kidney function and pathophysiologic processes according to severity is widely used in chronic kidney disease or acute kidney injury not requiring dialysis. Yet the diagnosis of "end-stage kidney disease" (ESKD) considers patients as a single homogeneous group, with negligible kidney function, in need of kidney replacement therapy. Herein, we review the evidence behind the heterogeneous nature of ESKD and discuss potential benefits of recasting the terminology used to describe advanced kidney dysfunction from a monolithic entity to a disease with stages of ascending severity. We consider kidney assistance therapy in lieu of kidney replacement therapy to better reconcile all available types of therapy for advanced kidney failure including dietary intervention, kidney transplantation, and dialysis therapy at varied schedules. The lexicon "kidney dysfunction requiring dialysis" (KDRD) with stages of ascending severity based on levels of residual kidney function (RKF)-that is, renal urea clearance-and manifestations related to uremia, fluid status, and other abnormalities is discussed. Subtyping KDRD by levels of RKF could advance dialysis therapy as a form of kidney assistance therapy adjusted based on RKF and clinical symptoms. We focus on intermittent hemodialysis and underscore the need to personalize dialysis treatments and improve characterization of patients included in clinical trials.

Kidney dysfunction requiring dialysis is a heterogeneous syndrome: we should treat it like one.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Advanced kidney failure requiring dialysis, commonly labeled end-stage kidney disease or chronic kidney disease stage 5D, is a heterogeneous syndrome -a key reason that may explain why: treating advanced kidney dysfunction is challenging and many clinical trials involving patients on dialysis have failed, thus far. Treatment with dialytic techniques - of which maintenance thrice-weekly hemodialysis is most commonly used - is broadly named kidney 'replacement' therapy, a term that casts the perception of a priori abandonment of intrinsic kidney function and subsumes patients into a single, homogeneous group. RECENT FINDINGS: Patients with advanced kidney failure necessitating dialytic therapy may have ongoing endogenous kidney function, and differ in their clinical manifestations and needs. Different terminology, for example, kidney dysfunction requiring dialysis (KDRD) with stages of progressive severity could better capture the range of phenotypes of patients who require kidney 'assistance' therapy. SUMMARY: Classifying patients with KDRD based on objective, quantitative levels of endogenous kidney function, as well as patient-reported symptoms and quality of life, would facilitate hemodialysis prescriptions tailored to level of kidney dysfunction, clinical needs, and personal priorities. Such classification would encourage clinicians to move toward personalized, physiological, and adaptive approach to hemodialysis therapy.

Twice-Weekly Hemodialysis With Adjuvant Pharmacotherapy and Transition to Thrice-Weekly Hemodialysis: A Pilot Study.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Thrice-weekly hemodialysis (HD) is the most common treatment modality for kidney failure in the United States. We conducted a pilot study to assess the feasibility and safety of incremental-start HD in patients beginning maintenance HD. STUDY DESIGN: Pilot study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Adults with estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≥5 mL/min/1.73 m2 and urine volume ≥500 mL/d beginning maintenance HD at 14 outpatient dialysis units. EXPOSURE: Randomized allocation (1:1 ratio) to twice-weekly HD and adjuvant pharmacologic therapy for 6 weeks followed by thrice-weekly HD (incremental HD group) or thrice-weekly HD (conventional HD group). OUTCOME: The primary outcome was feasibility. Secondary outcomes included changes in urine volume and solute clearance. RESULTS: Of 77 patients invited to participate, 51 consented to do so, representing 66% of eligible patients. We randomized 23 patients to the incremental HD group and 25 patients to the conventional HD group. Protocol-based loop diuretics, sodium bicarbonate, and patiromer were prescribed to 100%, 39%, and 17% of patients on twice-weekly HD, respectively. At a mean follow-up of 281.9 days, participant adherence was 96% to the HD schedule (22 of 23 and 24 of 25 in the incremental and conventional groups, respectively) and 100% in both groups to serial timed urine collection. The incidence rate ratio for all-cause hospitalization was 0.31 (95% CI, 0.08-1.17); and 7 deaths were recorded (1 in the incremental and 6 in the conventional group). At week 24, the incremental HD group had lower declines in urine volume (a difference of 51.0 [95% CI, -0.7 to 102.8] percentage points) and in the averaged urea and creatinine clearances (a difference of 57.9 [95% CI, -22.6 to 138.4] percentage points). LIMITATIONS: Small sample size, time-limited twice-weekly HD. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to enroll patients beginning maintenance HD into a randomized study of incremental-start HD with adjuvant pharmacotherapy who adhere to the study protocol during follow-up. Larger multicenter clinical trials are indicated to determine the efficacy and safety of incremental HD with longer twice-weekly HD periods. FUNDING: Funding was provided by Vifor Inc. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT03740048.

Renal Recovery in Critically Ill Adult Patients Treated with Veno-Venous Or Veno-Arterial Extra Corporeal Membrane Oxygenation: a Retrospective Cohort Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenator (ECMO) therapy are critically ill and often develop acute kidney injury (AKI) during hospitalisation. Little is known about the association of exposure to and the effect of the type of ECMO and extent of renal recovery after AKI development. AIM OF THE STUDY: In patients who developed AKI, renal recovery was characterised as complete, partial or dialysis-dependent at the time of hospital discharge in both the Veno-Arterial (VA) and Veno-Venous (VV) ECMO treatment groups. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study consisted of a single-centre retrospective cohort that includes all adult patients (n=125) who received ECMO treatment at a tertiary academic medical centre between 2015 to 2019. Data on demographics, type of ECMO circuit, comorbidities, exposure to nephrotoxic factors and receipt of renal replacement therapy (RRT) were collected as a part of the analysis. Acute Kidney Injury Network (AKIN) criteria were used for the diagnosis and classification of AKI. Group differences were assessed using Fisher's exact tests for categorical data and independent t-tests for continuous outcomes. RESULTS: Sixty-four patients received VA ECMO, and 58 received VV ECMO. AKI developed in 58(91%) in the VA ECMO group and 51 (88%) in the VV ECMO group (p=0.77). RRT was prescribed in significantly higher numbers in the VV group 38 (75%) compared to the VA group 27 (47%) (p=0.0035). At the time of discharge, AKI recovery rate in the VA group consisted of 15 (26%) complete recovery and 5 (9%) partial recovery; 1 (2%) remained dialysis-dependent. In the VV group, 22 (43%) had complete recovery (p=0.07), 3(6%) had partial recovery (p=0.72), and 1 (2%) was dialysis-dependent (p>0.99). In-hospital mortality was 64% in the VA group and 49% in the VV group (p=0.13). CONCLUSIONS: Renal outcomes in critically ill patients who develop AKI are not associated with the type of ECMO used. This serves as preliminary data for future studies in the area.

Shared decision-making in hemodialysis vascular access practice.

Shared decision-making (SDM) is a process of collaborative deliberation in the dyadic patient-physician interaction whereby physicians inform the patients about the pros and cons of all available treatment options and reach an agreement with the patients on their preferred treatment plan. In hemodialysis vascular access practice, SDM advocates a deliberative approach based on the existence of reasonable alternatives-that is, arteriovenous fistula, arteriovenous graft, and central venous catheter-so that patients are able to form and share preferences about access options. In spite of its ethical imperative, SDM is not broadly applied in hemodialysis vascular access planning. Physicians and surgeons commonly deliver prescriptive fistula-centered recommendations concerning the approach to vascular access care. This paternalistic approach has been shaped by directions from long-held clinical practice guidelines and is reinforced by financial payment models linked with the prevalence of arteriovenous fistula in patients on hemodialysis. Awareness is growing that what may have initially seemed a medically and surgically appropriate approach might not always be focused on each individual's goals of care. Clinician's recommendations for vascular access often do not sufficiently consider the uncertainty surrounding the potential benefits of the decision or the cumulative impact of the decision on patient's quality of life. In the evolving health care landscape, it is time for the practice of hemodialysis vascular access to shift from a hierarchical doctor-patient approach to patient-centered care. In this article we review the current state of vascular access practice, present arguments why SDM is necessary in vascular access planning, review barriers and potential solutions to SDM implementation, and discuss future research contingent on an effective system of physician-patient participative decision-making in hemodialysis vascular access practice.

Renal replacement treatment initiation with twice-weekly versus thrice-weekly haemodialysis in patients with incident dialysis-dependent kidney disease: rationale and design of the TWOPLUS pilot clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: The optimal haemodialysis (HD) prescription-frequency and dose-for patients with incident dialysis-dependent kidney disease (DDKD) and substantial residual kidney function (RKF)-that is, renal urea clearance ≥2 mL/min/1.73 m2 and urine volume ≥500 mL/day-is not known. The aim of the present study is to test the feasibility and safety of a simple, reliable prescription of incremental HD in patients with incident DDKD and RKF. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This parallel-group, open-label randomised pilot trial will enrol 50 patients from 14 outpatient dialysis units. Participants will be randomised (1:1) to receive twice-weekly HD with adjuvant pharmacological therapy for 6 weeks followed by thrice-weekly HD (incremental HD group) or outright thrice-weekly HD (standard HD group). Age ≥18 years, chronic kidney disease progressing to DDKD and urine output ≥500 mL/day are key inclusion criteria; patients with left ventricular ejection fraction <30% and acute kidney injury requiring dialysis will be excluded. Adjuvant pharmacological therapy (ie, effective diuretic regimen, patiromer and sodium bicarbonate) will complement twice-weekly HD. The primary feasibility end points are recruitment rate, adherence to the assigned HD regimen, adherence to serial timed urine collections and treatment contamination. Incidence rate of clinically significant volume overload and metabolic imbalances in the first 3 months after randomisation will be used to assess intervention safety. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Wake Forest School of Medicine in North Carolina, USA. Patient recruitment began on 14 June 2019, was paused between 13 March 2020 and 31 May 2020 due to COVID-19 pandemic, resumed on 01 June 2020 and will last until the required sample size has been attained. Participants will be followed in usual care fashion for a minimum of 6 months from last individual enrolled. All regulations and measures of ethics and confidentiality are handled in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03740048; Pre-results.

Arteriovenous Fistula Versus Graft Access Strategy in Older Adults Receiving Hemodialysis: A Pilot Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether surgical placement of an arteriovenous (AV) fistula (AVF) confers substantial clinical benefits over an AV graft (AVG) in older adults with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). We report vascular access outcomes of a pilot clinical trial. STUDY DESIGN: Pilot randomized parallel-group open-label trial. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Patients 65 years and older with ESKD and no prior AV access receiving maintenance hemodialysis through a tunneled central venous catheter referred for AV access placement by their treating nephrologist. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to surgical placement of an AVG or AVF. OUTCOMES: Index AV access primary failure, successful cannulation, adjuvant interventions and infections. RESULTS: Of 122 older adults receiving hemodialysis and no prior AV access surgery, 24% died before (n = 18) or were too sick for (n = 11) referral for a permanent AV access. Of 46 eligible patients, 36 (78%) consented and were randomly assigned to AVG (n = 18) and AVF (n = 18) placement, of whom 13 (72%) and 16 (89%) underwent index AV access surgical placement, respectively. At a median follow-up of 321.0 days, primary AV access failure was noted in 31% in each group. The proportion of patients with successful cannulation was 62% (8 of 13) in the AVG and 50% (8 of 16) in the AVF group; median times to successful cannulation were 75.0 and 113.5 days, respectively. Endovascular procedures were recorded in 38% and 44%, and surgical reinterventions, in 23% and 25%, respectively. AV access infection was seen in 3 (23%) and 2 (13%) patients, respectively. LIMITATIONS: Small sample size precludes statistical inference. CONCLUSIONS: Almost one-quarter of older adults with incident ESKD and a central venous catheter as primary access were not referred for AV access placement due to medical reasons. Based on these limited results, there is little reason to favor either an AVF or AVG in this population until results from a larger randomized clinical trial become available. FUNDING: Government funding to an author (Dr Murea is supported by National Institutes of Health∖National Institute on Aging grant 1R03 AG060178-01). TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03545113.

New Frontiers in Vascular Access Practice: From Standardized to Patient-tailored Care and Shared Decision Making.

Vascular access planning is critical in the management of patients with advanced kidney disease who elect for hemodialysis for RRT. Policies put in place more than two decades ago attempted to standardize vascular access care around the model of optimal, namely arteriovenous fistula, and least preferred, namely central venous catheter, type of access. This homogenized approach to vascular access care emerged ineffective in the increasingly heterogeneous and complex dialysis population. The most recent vascular access guidelines acknowledge the limitations of standardized care and encourage tailoring vascular access care on the basis of patient and disease characteristics. In this article, we discuss available literature in support of patient-tailored access care on the basis of differences in vascular access outcomes by biologic and social factors-age, sex, and race. Further, we draw attention to the overlooked dimension of patient-reported preferences and shared decision making in the practice of vascular access planning. We discuss milestones to overcome as requisite steps to implement effective shared decision making in vascular access care. Finally, we take into consideration local practice cofactors as major players in vascular access fate. We conclude that a personalized approach to hemodialysis vascular access will require dynamic care specifically relevant to the individual on the basis of biologic factors, fluctuating clinical needs, values, and preferences.