Kidney transplantation reduces the risk of chronic limb threatening ischemia and amputation among patients with end-stage renal disease on hemodialysis.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to analyze the risk of chronic limb threatening ischemia (CLTI) or amputation among patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) entering a hemodialysis (HD) program and to evaluate the protective effect associated with kidney transplantation (KT). DESIGN, MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective cohort of all consecutive ESRD patients entering into a HD program at our institution between 2000 and 2010. Collected variables included baseline characteristics (pre-entry in hemodialysis), time on HD program, KT and the composite outcome of chronic limb threatening ischemia or need for any amputation (CLTI/AMP). Patients with previous symptomatic peripheral arterial disease or amputation were excluded. RESULTS: The study group included 336 patients (mean age 63 years, 66% male). The mean follow up was 6.7 years with an average time on HD of 4.2 years. Ninety two patients (27.4 %) underwent transplantation. CLTI free survival rates were 90.3 % and 82.6 % at 5 and 10 years, respectively. The episodes of CLT involved 28 revascularization procedures (17 endovascular and 11 open surgeries), 18 minor amputations and 20 major amputations. KT was associated with a protective effect over the development of CLTI (HR: 0.065; CI 95% 0.02-0.21) after adjustment for confounding factors. The long-term survival of non-transplanted patients was 45 % and 15 % at 5 and 10 years, respectively and the long-term survival in transplanted patients was 89% and 80% at 5 and 10 years, respectively; but decreased to 47 % at 1 year and 18.2 % at 5 years once CLTI occurred. CONCLUSION: Patients on HD program show a notorious risk of chronic limb threatening ischemia or amputation over time. Once this complication occurs, patient's survival is markedly reduced. Transplantation confers an independent protective effect over the development of chronic limb threatening ischemia or amputation.

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

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.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of the introduction of a specialised consultation with duplex ultrasound assessment prior to vascular access surgery for haemodialysis.

INTRODUCTION: Duplex ultrasound (DUS) is increasingly used before vascular access (VA) surgery for haemodialysis. However, the cost-effectiveness of this approach is unknown. Our objective was to assess whether the introduction of a specialised consultation with DUS assessment modifies the cost and the time delay to achieve a first VA valid for haemodialysis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Prospective cohort of patients undergoing a first VA (June 2014-July 2017) after a specialised consultation with DUS (ECO group). They were compared with a historical cohort (January 2012-May 2014) where VA was indicated exclusively by clinical evaluation (CLN group). We analysed the cost related to visits, DUS assessments, interventions, hospital admissions and graft materials to achieve a first VA valid for haemodialysis at least during 1 month. RESULTS: 86 patients in the CLN group were compared with 92 in the ECO group. Patients in the ECO group were younger (68.4 vs. 64.0 years; P=.038) but no other differences were seen among groups. The average cost to achieve a first AV valid for haemodialysis was significantly lower in the ECO group (2707 vs. 3347€; P=.024). There was a higher cost associated with DUS assessments in the ECO group yet the CLN group had a higher cost related to follow-up visits, successive surgical interventions, prosthetic material, days of hospital admission and catheters. The mean time needed to achieve a first AV valid for haemodialysis was also shorter in the ECO group (49.9 vs. 82.9 days, P=.002). CONCLUSION: The introduction of a specialised vascular access consultation with DUS prior to VA surgery has reduced the cost necessary to achieve a first VA valid for haemodialysis. From the patient's point of view this has meant less interventions and hospital admissions and a shortening of the time delay.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of the introduction of a specialised consultation with duplex ultrasound assessment prior to vascular access surgery for haemodialysis. / Impacto de la introducción de una consulta específica con valoración eco-doppler en el costo asociado a la obtención de un primer acceso vascular para hemodiálisis.

INTRODUCTION: Duplex ultrasound (DUS) is increasingly used before vascular access (VA) surgery for haemodialysis. However, the cost-effectiveness of this approach is unknown. Our objective was to assess whether the introduction of a specialised consultation with DUS assessment modifies the cost and the time delay to achieve a first VA valid for haemodialysis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Prospective cohort of patients undergoing a first VA (June 2014-July 2017) after a specialised consultation with DUS (ECO group). They were compared with a historical cohort (January 2012-May 2014) where VA was indicated exclusively by clinical evaluation (CLN group). We analysed the cost related to visits, DUS assessments, interventions, hospital admissions and graft materials to achieve a first VA valid for haemodialysis at least during 1 month. RESULTS: Eighty-six patients in the CLN group were compared with 92 in the ECO group. Patients in the ECO group were younger (68.4 vs. 64.0 years; P=.038) but no other differences were seen among groups. The average cost to achieve a first AV valid for haemodialysis was significantly lower in the ECO group (2707 vs. 3347€; P=.024). There was a higher cost associated with DUS assessments in the ECO group yet the CLN group had a higher cost related to follow-up visits, successive surgical interventions, prosthetic material, days of hospital admission and catheters. The mean time needed to achieve a first AV valid for haemodialysis was also shorter in the ECO group (49.9 vs. 82.9 days, P=.002). CONCLUSION: The introduction of a specialised vascular access consultation with DUS prior to VA surgery has reduced the cost necessary to achieve a first VA valid for haemodialysis. From the patient's point of view this has meant less interventions and hospital admissions and a shortening of the time delay.

Utility of doppler ultrasound in the preoperative evaluation of the first vascular access for haemodialysis. / Utilidad de la valoración ecográfica previa a la realización del primer acceso vascular para hemodiálisis.

INTRODUCTION: Traditionally, the indication of the type of vascular access (VA) has been based on the surgeon's physical examination, but it is now suggested that imaging methods could provide a clinical benefit. Our aim was to determine whether or not preoperative Doppler ultrasound modifies outcomes of the first VA for haemodialysis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Prospective cohort of patients undergoing a first VA from June 2014 to July 2017 who had a preoperative Doppler ultrasound (ECO group). They were compared to a historical cohort (January 2012-May 2014) of first VA indicated exclusively by clinical assessment (CLN group). RESULTS: A total of 86 patients from the CLN group were compared to 92 from the ECO group, which was younger (68.4 vs 64.0, P=.038). The primary patency (CLN/ECO) at 1 and 2years was 59.5%/71.9% and 53.1%/57.8% respectively, marginally better in the ECO group (P=.057). The assisted patency at 1 and 2years was 63.2%/80.7% and 58.1%/70.2%, respectively, significantly better for the ECO group (P=.010). Due to lack of patency/utility of the initial VA, 26.7% in the CLN group and 7.6% in the ECO group (P<.001) required a new VA during the first 6months. An average of 1.39 interventions were performed to achieve a useful VA in the CLN group and 1.08 in the ECO group (P<.001), the first VA being useful at the radiocephalic level in 31.0%/45.1% (P=.039). CONCLUSION: The indication of the first VA according to a preoperative Doppler ultrasound examination could decrease the need for new VA, enable them to be made more distal, and significantly improve patency.

Impacto de la introducción de una consulta específica con valoración eco-doppler en el costo asociado a la obtención de un primer acceso vascular para hemodiálisis / A cost-effectiveness analysis of the introduction of a specialised consultation with duplex ultrasound assessment prior to vascular access surgery for haemodialysis

Introducción: La valoración mediante eco-doppler (ED) previa a la realización de un acceso vascular (AV) está cada vez más extendida, pero existen pocos estudios que aborden su coste/efectividad. Nuestro objetivo fue evaluar si la introducción de una consulta específica de AV con ED modifica el coste, los tiempos de demora, el número de re-intervenciones e ingresos para lograr un primer AV útil.Pacientes y métodosCohorte prospectiva de pacientes sometidos a un primer AV (junio 2014-julio 2017), a quienes se practicó un ED preoperatorio (grupo ECO). Se compararon con una cohorte histórica (enero 2012-mayo 2014) de primeros AV indicados exclusivamente mediante valoración clínica (grupo CLN). Se calcularon los costes de realización y el seguimiento para lograr un AV útil para hemodiálisis durante como mínimo un mes sin complicaciones.ResultadosSe compararon 86 pacientes del grupo CLN con 92 del ECO, siendo estos últimos más jóvenes (68,4 vs. 64,0 años; p=0,038). El coste medio del grupo ECO fue significativamente inferior (ECO=2.707 vs. CLN=3.347€; p=0,024). El grupo ECO tuvo un coste mayor en ecografías preoperatorias y de seguimiento. El grupo CLN tuvo un coste superior respecto a consultas de seguimiento, intervenciones quirúrgicas sucesivas, material protésico, días de ingreso y catéteres. Se disminuyó el tiempo de demora para la realización del AV (CLN=82,9 vs. ECO=49,9 días; p=0,002).ConclusiónLa introducción de una consulta específica de AV para hemodiálisis con valoración ED, ha permitido disminuir el coste para lograr un primer AV útil, como consecuencia de una reducción en los tiempos de demora, visitas de control, re-intervenciones, días de ingreso e implantación de catéteres. (AU)

Introduction: Duplex ultrasound (DUS) is increasingly used before vascular access (VA) surgery for haemodialysis. However, the cost-effectiveness of this approach is unknown. Our objective was to assess whether the introduction of a specialised consultation with DUS assessment modifies the cost and the time delay to achieve a first VA valid for haemodialysis.Patients and methodsProspective cohort of patients undergoing a first VA (June 2014-July 2017) after a specialised consultation with DUS (ECO group). They were compared with a historical cohort (January 2012-May 2014) where VA was indicated exclusively by clinical evaluation (CLN group). We analysed the cost related to visits, DUS assessments, interventions, hospital admissions and graft materials to achieve a first VA valid for haemodialysis at least during 1 month.ResultsEighty-six patients in the CLN group were compared with 92 in the ECO group. Patients in the ECO group were younger (68.4 vs. 64.0 years; P=.038) but no other differences were seen among groups. The average cost to achieve a first AV valid for haemodialysis was significantly lower in the ECO group (2707 vs. 3347€; P=.024). There was a higher cost associated with DUS assessments in the ECO group yet the CLN group had a higher cost related to follow-up visits, successive surgical interventions, prosthetic material, days of hospital admission and catheters. The mean time needed to achieve a first AV valid for haemodialysis was also shorter in the ECO group (49.9 vs. 82.9 days, P=.002).ConclusionThe introduction of a specialised vascular access consultation with DUS prior to VA surgery has reduced the cost necessary to achieve a first VA valid for haemodialysis. From the patient's point of view this has meant less interventions and hospital admissions and a shortening of the time delay. (AU)

Utilidad de la valoración ecográfica previa a la realización del primer acceso vascular para hemodiálisis / Utility of doppler ultrasound in the preoperative evaluation of the first vascular access for haemodialysis

INTRODUCCIÓN: Tradicionalmente la indicación del tipo de acceso vascular (AV) se ha basado en la exploración física del cirujano, pero actualmente se sugiere que los métodos de imagen podrían aportar un beneficio. Nuestro objetivo fue valorar si el eco-doppler preoperatorio modifica los resultados del primer AV para hemodiálisis. PACIENTES Y MÉTODOS: Cohorte prospectiva de pacientes sometidos a un primer AV entre junio de 2014 y julio de 2017, a quienes se practicó un eco-doppler preoperatorio (grupo ECO). Se compararon con una cohorte histórica (enero de 2012-mayo de 2014) de primeros AV indicados exclusivamente mediante clínica (grupo CLN). RESULTADOS: Se compararon 86 pacientes del grupo CLN con 92 del ECO, siendo estos últimos más jóvenes (68,4 vs 64,0 años; p = 0,038). Las permeabilidades primarias (CLN/ECO) a 1 y 2 años fueron del 59,5/71,9% y del 53,1/57,8%, marginalmente mejores en el grupo ECO (p = 0,057). Las permeabilidades asistidas a 1 y 2años fueron del 63,2/80,7% y del 58,1/70,2%, siendo significativamente mejores para el grupo ECO (p = 0,010). Requirieron un nuevo AV durante los primeros 6 meses, por falta de permeabilidad/utilidad del inicial, el 26,7% en el grupo CLN y el 7,6% en el ECO (p < 0,001). Se realizaron una media de 1,39 intervenciones para conseguir un AV útil en el grupo CLN y 1,08 en ECO (p = 0,001), siendo el primer AV útil a nivel radiocefálico en el 31,0/45,1% (p = 0,039). CONCLUSIÓN: La indicación del primer AV en función de una exploración mediante eco-doppler preoperatoria podría mejorar de forma significativa la permeabilidad, disminuir la necesidad de nuevos AV y permitir realizarlos más distales

INTRODUCTION: Traditionally, the indication of the type of vascular access (VA) has been based on the surgeon's physical examination, but it is now suggested that imaging methods could provide a clinical benefit. Our aim was to determine whether or not preoperative Doppler ultrasound modifies outcomes of the first VA for haemodialysis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Prospective cohort of patients undergoing a first VA from June 2014 to July 2017 who had a preoperative Doppler ultrasound (ECO group). They were compared to a historical cohort (January 2012-May 2014) of first VA indicated exclusively by clinical assessment (CLN group). RESULTS: A total of 86 patients from the CLN group were compared to 92 from the ECO group, which was younger (68.4 vs 64.0, P = .038). The primary patency (CLN/ECO) at 1 and 2 years was 59.5%/71.9% and 53.1%/57.8% respectively, marginally better in the ECO group (P = .057). The assisted patency at 1 and 2 years was 63.2%/80.7% and 58.1%/70.2%, respectively, significantly better for the ECO group (P = .010). Due to lack of patency/utility of the initial VA, 26.7% in the CLN group and 7.6% in the ECO group (P <.001) required a new VA during the first 6months. An average of 1.39 interventions were performed to achieve a useful VA in the CLN group and 1.08 in the ECO group (P < .001), the first VA being useful at the radiocephalic level in 31.0%/45.1% (P = .039). CONCLUSION: The indication of the first VA according to a preoperative Doppler ultrasound examination could decrease the need for new VA, enable them to be made more distal, and significantly improve patency

Factores de riesgo y complicaciones cardiovasculares en pacientes con enfermedad renal crónica en hemodiálisis: prevalencia, morbilidad y mortalidad / Risk factors and cardiovascular complications in patients with chronic renal disease on hemodialysis: prevalence, morbidity and mortality

Objetivos: describir los factores de riesgo cardiovasculares (FRCV) y la asociación con enfermedad cardiovascular (ECV) de los pacientes con enfermedad renal crónica (ERC) en hemodiálisis (HD). Métodos: se realizó un estudio descriptivo transversal. Se incluyeron 345 pacientes prevalentes adultos en programa de HD convencional, por cualquier etiología, de ambos sexos, con 18 y más años, que se encontraban en el Hospital del Mar de Barcelona y 3 centros de diálisis de los que dicho hospital es centro de referencia, y que mostraron su consentimiento informado por escrito, se revisaron historias clínicas de las bases de datos de dichos centros y se emplearon estadísticas descriptivas. Resultados: la edad media fue de 69,19 ± 14,03 años; 71,5 porciento del sexo masculino; el tiempo promedio en tratamiento 62,26 ± 84,79 meses. La frecuencia de los FRCV clásicos ha sido hipertensión (82,5 porciento), diabetes mellitus (DM, con 32,2 porciento), sexo masculino (71,6 porciento) y dislipemia (55,7 porciento). La ECV ha estado presente en el 60,5 porciento de los pacientes y el 53,9 porciento propiamente de origen cardíaco. Los factores de riesgo que se asociaron con enfermedad cardiovascular fueron: tabaquismo, dislipidemia, DM, hipertensión arterial (HTA), HVI, edad e índice de comorbilidad de Charlson, con una significación estadística (p< 0,05). Conclusiones: los pacientes con enfermedad renal crónica en hemodiálisis tienen elevada frecuencia de ECV y de FRCV clásicos. Los factores predictores de ECV clínica en nuestra población fueron la edad, la presencia de ECV subclínica HVI y FRCV clásicos (HTA, DM, dislipidemia y hábito tabáquico, edad, índice de comorbilidad de Charlson)

Objectives: Describe cardiovascular risk factors (CVRF) and their association with cardiovascular disease (CVD) in patients with chronic renal disease (CRD) on hemodialysis (HD). Methods: A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted with 345 prevalent adult patients of both sexes, aged 18 and over, following a conventional HD program irrespective of etiology at Mar de Barcelona Hospital and 3 other dialysis centers for which the said hospital is a reference center. All patients gave their informed consent in writing. A review was made of the medical records contained in databases at the said centers, and descriptive statistics were applied. Results: Mean age was 69.19±14.03; 71.5 percent of patients were male; mean treatment time was 62.26 ± 84.79 months. The frequency of classical CVRFs was the following: hypertension (82.5 percent), diabetes mellitus (DM, 32.2 percent), male sex (71.6 percent) and dyslipemia (55.7 percent). CVD was present in 60.5percent of patients; 53.9 percent was of cardiac origin proper. The following risk factors were associated with cardiovascular disease: smoking, dyslipidemia, DM, arterial hypertension (AHT), LVH, age, and Charlson comorbidity index, with a statistical significance of (p< 0.05). Conclusions: Patients with chronic renal disease on hemodialysis have a high frequency of CVD and classical CVRFs. The factors predicting clinical CVD in our population were age, the presence of subclinical CVD, LVH, and classical CVRFs (AHT, DM, dyslipidemia, smoking, age and Charlson comorbidity index)