Spanish Clinical Guidelines on Vascular Access for Haemodialysis. / Guía Clínica Española del Acceso Vascular para Hemodiálisis.

Vascular access for haemodialysis is key in renal patients both due to its associated morbidity and mortality and due to its impact on quality of life. The process, from the creation and maintenance of vascular access to the treatment of its complications, represents a challenge when it comes to decision-making, due to the complexity of the existing disease and the diversity of the specialities involved. With a view to finding a common approach, the Spanish Multidisciplinary Group on Vascular Access (GEMAV), which includes experts from the five scientific societies involved (nephrology [S.E.N.], vascular surgery [SEACV], vascular and interventional radiology [SERAM-SERVEI], infectious diseases [SEIMC] and nephrology nursing [SEDEN]), along with the methodological support of the Cochrane Center, has updated the Guidelines on Vascular Access for Haemodialysis, published in 2005. These guidelines maintain a similar structure, in that they review the evidence without compromising the educational aspects. However, on one hand, they provide an update to methodology development following the guidelines of the GRADE system in order to translate this systematic review of evidence into recommendations that facilitate decision-making in routine clinical practice, and, on the other hand, the guidelines establish quality indicators which make it possible to monitor the quality of healthcare.

Guía Clínica Española del Acceso Vascular para Hemodiálisis / Spanish Clinical Guidelines on Vascular Access for Haemodialysis

El acceso vascular para hemodiálisis es esencial para el enfermo renal tanto por su morbimortalidad asociada como por su repercusión en la calidad de vida. El proceso que va desde la creación y mantenimiento del acceso vascular hasta el tratamiento de sus complicaciones constituye un reto para la toma de decisiones debido a la complejidad de la patología existente y a la diversidad de especialidades involucradas. Con el fin de conseguir un abordaje consensuado, el Grupo Español Multidisciplinar del Acceso Vascular (GEMAV), que incluye expertos de las cinco sociedades científicas implicadas (nefrología [S.E.N.], cirugía vascular [SEACV], radiología vascular e intervencionista [SERAM-SERVEI], enfermedades infecciosas [SEIMC] y enfermería nefrológica [SEDEN]), con el soporte metodológico del Centro Cochrane Iberoamericano, ha realizado una actualización de la Guía del Acceso Vascular para Hemodiálisis publicada en 2005. Esta guía mantiene una estructura similar, revisando la evidencia sin renunciar a la vertiente docente, pero se aportan como novedades, por un lado, la metodología en su elaboración, siguiendo las directrices del sistema GRADE con el objetivo de traducir esta revisión sistemática de la evidencia en recomendaciones que faciliten la toma de decisiones en la práctica clínica habitual y, por otro, el establecimiento de indicadores de calidad que permitan monitorizar la calidad asistencial (AU)

Vascular access for haemodialysis is key in renal patients both due to its associated morbidity and mortality and due to its impact on quality of life. The process, from the creation and maintenance of vascular access to the treatment of its complications, represents a challenge when it comes to decision-making, due to the complexity of the existing disease and the diversity of the specialities involved. With a view to finding a common approach, the Spanish Multidisciplinary Group on Vascular Access (GEMAV), which includes experts from the five scientific societies involved (nephrology [S.E.N.], vascular surgery [SEACV], vascular and interventional radiology [SERAM-SERVEI], infectious diseases [SEIMC] and nephrology nursing [SEDEN]), along with the methodological support of the Cochrane Center, has updated the Guidelines on Vascular Access for Haemodialysis, published in 2005. These guidelines maintain a similar structure, in that they review the evidence without compromising the educational aspects. However, on one hand, they provide an update to methodology development following the guidelines of the GRADE system in order to translate this systematic review of evidence into recommendations that facilitate decision-making in routine clinical practice, and, on the other hand, the guidelines establish quality indicators which make it possible to monitor the quality of healthcare (AU)

Desarrollo de la gestión medioambiental certificada en unidades hospitalarias y ambulatorias de hemodiálisis / Development of certified environmental management in hospital and outpatient haemodialysis units

Antecedentes: El impacto ambiental de la hemodiálisis es destacado. Está destacando la actividad en este sentido incluso a nivel bibliográfico. Los sistemas de gestión medioambiental (SGMA) voluntarios, Environmental Management and Auditing System (EMAS) e International Organization for Standardization (ISO 14001), son instrumentos destacados para la protección medioambiental junto a legislación, impuestos y beneficios fiscales. Objetivos: Conocer el grado de implantación de los SGMA en las unidades de hemodiálisis hospitalarias y ambulatorias del Sistema Nacional de Salud español, para disponer de un grupo de centros de referencia en gestión medioambiental en esta actividad sanitaria. Métodos: Elaboración de un listado por comunidades autónomas que muestre las unidades hospitalarias y ambulatorias de diálisis que disponen en 2012-2013 de EMAS o ISO 14001. Fuentes de información: Catálogo Nacional de Hospitales, Registro Español de Certificación y Acreditación Sanitaria, registros europeo y autonómicos de EMAS, registro mundial de ISO, listados de centros de diálisis de sociedades científicas y de pacientes y, respuesta de entidades acreditadas para certificación medioambiental en España e información de web institucional de cada centro sanitario identificado. Resultados: Un total de 210 hospitales cuentan con hemodiálisis, 53 (25% de centros hospitalarios con diálisis) disponen de ISO 14001 (y 15 de ellos, también EMAS), el 30% del total de puestos hospitalarios en España: 1.291 (de 4.298). Solo se registran 11 clínicas ambulatorias, todas con ISO 14001. Discusión: No existe referente oficial que muestre la implantación de los SGMA en hospitales. Confeccionar este listado ofrece una aproximación a su situación, con especial referencia a la hemodiálisis por su destacada implicación ambiental (AU)

Introduction: The environmental impact of haemodialysis is very high. Institutional activity in this sense is important, even in the production of references. Voluntary environmental management systems (EMS), environmental management and auditing systems (EMAS) and the International Organization for Standardization standards (ISO 14001) are important tools for environmental protection, together with legislation, taxation and tax benefits. Objectives: To determine the degree of implementation of EMS in hospital units and outpatient haemodialysis in the Spanish National Health System to provide a group of reference centres in environmental management in this healthcare activity. Methods: Development of a list by autonomous communities showing hospital and outpatient dialysis units using an EMAS and/or ISO 14001 in 2012-2013. The sources of information were the Spanish National Catalogue of Hospitals, Spanish Registry of Healthcare Certification and Accreditation, European and regional EMAS records, world ISO registrations, dialysis centre lists from scientific societies and patients, responses from accredited entities in Spain for environmental certification and the institutional website of each haemodialysis centre identified. Results: Of the 210 hospitals with a dialysis unit, 53 (25%) have the ISO 14001 and 15 of these also have an EMAS). This constitutes 30% of all hospital dialysis chairs in Spain: 1,291 (of 4,298). Only 11 outpatient clinics are recorded, all with the ISO 14001.Discussion: There is no official documentation of the implementation of EMS in dialysis units. Making this list provides an approach to the situation, with special reference to haemodialysis because of its significant environmental impact (AU)

Development of certified environmental management in hospital and outpatient haemodialysis units.

INTRODUCTION: The environmental impact of haemodialysis is very high. Institutional activity in this sense is important, even in the production of references. Voluntary environmental management systems (EMS), environmental management and auditing systems (EMAS) and the International Organization for Standardization standards (ISO 14001) are important tools for environmental protection, together with legislation, taxation and tax benefits. OBJECTIVES: To determine the degree of implementation of EMS in hospital units and outpatient haemodialysis in the Spanish National Health System to provide a group of reference centres in environmental management in this healthcare activity. METHODS: Development of a list by autonomous communities showing hospital and outpatient dialysis units using an EMAS and/or ISO 14001 in 2012-2013. The sources of information were the Spanish National Catalogue of Hospitals, Spanish Registry of Healthcare Certification and Accreditation, European and regional EMAS records, world ISO registrations, dialysis centre lists from scientific societies and patients, responses from accredited entities in Spain for environmental certification and the institutional website of each haemodialysis centre identified. RESULTS: Of the 210 hospitals with a dialysis unit, 53 (25%) have the ISO 14001 and 15 of these also have an EMAS). This constitutes 30% of all hospital dialysis chairs in Spain: 1,291 (of 4,298). Only 11 outpatient clinics are recorded, all with the ISO 14001. DISCUSSION: There is no official documentation of the implementation of EMS in dialysis units. Making this list provides an approach to the situation, with special reference to haemodialysis because of its significant environmental impact.

Setting Priorities for Optimizing Vascular Access Decision Making--An International Survey of Patients and Clinicians.

BACKGROUND: Many decisions around vascular access for haemodialysis warrant a collaborative treatment decision-making process, involving both clinician and patient. Yet, patients' experiences in this regard have been suboptimal. Although clinical practice guidelines could facilitate collaborative decision making, they often focus on the clinicians' side of the process, while failing to address the patients' perspective. The objective of this study was to explore and compare kidney patients' and clinicians' views on what vascular access-related decisions deserved priority for developing guidelines that will contribute to optimizing collaborative decision making. METHODS: In the context of updating their vascular access guideline, European Renal Best Practice surveyed an international panel of 85 kidney patients, 687 nephrologists, 194 nurses, and 140 surgeons/radiologists. In an electronic questionnaire, respondents rated 42 vascular access-related topics on a 5-point Likert scale. Based on mean standardized ratings, we compared priority ratings between patients and each clinician group. RESULTS: Selection of access type and site, as well as prevention of access infections received top priority across all respondent groups. Patients generally assigned higher priority to decisions regarding managing adverse effects of arteriovenous access and patient involvement in care, while clinicians more often prioritized decisions around sustaining patients' access options, technical aspects of access creation, and optimizing fistula maturation and patency. CONCLUSION: Apart from identifying the most pressing knowledge gaps, our study provides pointers for developing guidelines that may improve healthcare professionals' understanding of when to involve patients along the vascular access pathway.

Preferred haemodialysis vascular access for diabetic chronic kidney disease patients: a systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: Vascular access problems are one of the main concerns in the diabetic end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) population. However, the optimal strategy for the establishment of vascular access in this population remains to be solved. We performed a systematic review in order to clarify the most advisable approach of vascular access planning in diabetic patients with ESKD. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases were searched for English-language articles without time restriction through focused, high-sensitive search strategies. We included all studies providing outcome data on diabetics starting chronic haemodialysis treatment on the basis of the type of primary placed vascular access. RESULTS: A total of 13 studies comprising over 2,800 participants with diabetes were reviewed in detail and included in the review. We found that diabetic patients using a dialysis catheter apparently experience a higher risk of death and infection compared with patients who successfully achieved and maintained an arteriovenous fistula as dialysis access. The comparison between the use of a graft or an autogenous fistula as dialysis access generated conflicting results. Primary patency rates appeared to be lower in diabetics versus non-diabetics. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that diabetic ESKD patients with dialysis catheters incur a higher risk of death in comparison to those who achieve an arteriovenous access. It is however unclear whether this is caused by residual selection bias or by a true advantage of native vascular access.

Dificultad para conseguir un Acceso Vascular para hemodiálisis: Caso Clínico: 9 años en Hemodiálisis, 15 Accesos Vasculares / Difficulty in achieving Vascular Access for haemodialysis: Case Study: 9 years on Haemodialysis, 15 Vascular Accesses

No disponible