Barriers to timely arteriovenous fistula creation: a study of providers and patients.

BACKGROUND: Current clinical practice guidelines recommend a native arteriovenous fistula (AVF) as the vascular access of first choice. Despite this, most patients in western countries start hemodialysis therapy using a catheter. Little is known regarding specific physician and system characteristics that may be responsible for delays in permanent access creation. STUDY DESIGN: Multicenter cohort study using mixed methods; qualitative and quantitative analysis. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: 9 nephrology centers in Australia and New Zealand, including 319 adult incident hemodialysis patients. PREDICTOR: Identification of barriers and enablers to AVF placement. OUTCOMES: Type of vascular access used at the start of hemodialysis therapy. MEASUREMENTS: Prospective data collection included data concerning predialysis education, interviews of center staff, referral times, and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at AVF creation and dialysis therapy start. RESULTS: 319 patients started hemodialysis therapy during the 6-month period, 39% with an AVF and 59% with a catheter. Perceived barriers to access creation included lack of formal policies for patient referral, long wait times for surgical review and access placement, and lack of a patient database for management purposes. eGFR thresholds at referral for and creation of vascular accesses were considerably lower than appreciated (in both cases, median eGFR of 7 mL/min/1.73 m(2)), with median wait times for access creation of only 3.7 weeks. First assessment by a nephrologist less than 12 months before dialysis therapy start was an independent predictor of catheter use (OR, 8.71; P < 0.001). Characteristics of the best performing centers included the presence of a formalized predialysis pathway with a centralized patient database and low nephrologist and surgeon to patient ratios. LIMITATIONS: A limited number of patient-based barriers was assessed. Cross-sectional data only. CONCLUSIONS: A formalized predialysis pathway including patient education and eGFR thresholds for access placement is associated with improved permanent vascular access placement.

Low dose heparin lock (1000 U/mL) maintains tunnelled hemodialysis catheter patency when compared with high dose heparin (5000 U/mL): A randomised controlled trial.

Introduction Heparin is commonly used after hemodialysis treatments as a locking solution to prevent catheter thrombosis. The comparative efficacy and safety of different heparin concentrations to maintain catheter patency has been previously reported in retrospective studies. We conducted a prospective, randomised, controlled study of 1000 U/mL heparin (low dose) versus 5000 U/mL heparin (high dose) locking solution to maintain patency of tunnelled catheters. Methods One hundred patients receiving chronic, unit-based hemodialysis with newly placed tunnelled hemodialysis catheters (less than 1 week) were randomly assigned to either a low dose (n = 48) or high dose heparin (n=52). The primary intention-to-treat analysis examined time to malfunction in both groups over a 90 day period. A secondary analysis compared baseline patient characteristics in relation to catheter malfunction. Findings Overall rate of catheter patency loss was 32% of catheters by 90 days. There was no significant difference in time to malfunction of catheters locked with low dose or high dose heparin (P = 0.5770). Time to catheter malfunction was not associated with diabetic, hypertensive or smoking status. There was no difference in mean delivered blood flow rate, venous and arterial pressure, and dialysis adequacy between low dose and high dose groups. No patient suffered a hemorrhagic complication requiring hospitalisation during the study period. Discussion Low dose heparin is adequate to maintain tunnelled hemodialysis catheter patency when compared with high dose heparin. The study also suggests that there is no relationship between catheter malfunction and diabetic, hypertensive or smoking status.

Effect of immunosuppression for primary renal disease on the risk of cancer in subsequent renal transplantation: a population-based retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: To measure the risk of cancer in renal transplantation for recipients who had previously been treated with immunosuppressive agents for primary renal disease. METHODS: A retrospective population-based cohort study of 5970 renal transplant recipients in Australia registered on the Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry between 1982 and 1997 and followed until 2007. Data about the incidence of a range of cancer types from this Registry were compared with cancer incidence data for the general population matched for cancer type, year of incidence, age, and gender derived from national cancer records. Outcome measures for each cancer group with or without pretransplantation immunosuppression were cancer-specific standardized incidence ratios and a multivariate hazard ratio (HR) standardized to 1. RESULTS: For those treated with pretransplantation immunosuppression, the risks for four cancer groups during renal transplantation were significantly increased: anogenital cancer (HR, 3.13; confidence interval [CI], 1.92-5.11; P<0.0001), non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (HR, 2.37; CI, 1.53-3.68; P=0.0001), breast cancer (HR, 2.52; CI, 1.13-5.61; P=0.024), and urinary tract cancer (excluding kidney) (HR, 1.84; CI, 1.13-3.01; P=0.015). However, the risks of cancer in the oral cavity and pharynx, kidney, thyroid, colon, leukemia, lung, melanoma, prostate, and stomach were not significantly increased. CONCLUSIONS: Pretransplantation immunosuppression for primary renal disease increases the risks of four cancer types in renal transplantation while sparing the others. Patients in whom this treatment is being considered should be informed of these risks.