Characterization of Hemodialysis Fistulas Experienced Abrupt Thrombosis and Determination of a Proper Follow-up Protocol: A Retrospective Cohort Study and an IR’s Prospective

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2431296/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Characterization of Hemodialysis Fistulas Experienced Abrupt Thrombosis and Determination of a Proper Follow-up Protocol: A Retrospective Cohort Study and an IR’s Prospective

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2431296/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background

Abrupt thrombosis is a form of thrombosis that occurs unexpectedly and without being preceded by hemodialysis fistula (AVF) dysfunction during dialysis. We found that AVFs with a history of abrupt thrombosis (abtAVF) appeared to have more episodes of thrombosis and required more frequent interventions than those without such history. Therefore, we sought to characterize the abtAVFs and examined our follow-up protocols to determine which one is optimal.

Methods

We performed a retrospective cohort study using routinely collected data. The thrombosis rate, AVF loss rate, thrombosis-free primary patency, and secondary patency were calculated. Additionally, the restenosis rates of the AVFs under the follow-up protocol/sub-protocols and the abtAVFs were determined.

Results

The thrombosis rate, procedure rate, AVF loss rate, thrombosis-free primary patency, and secondary patency of the abtAVFs were 0.237/pt-yr, 2.702/pt-yr, 0.027/pt-yr, 78.3%, and 96.0%, respectively. The restenosis rate for AVFs in the abtAVF group and the angiographic follow-up sub-protocol were similar. However, the abtAVF group had a significantly higher thrombosis rate and AVF loss rate than AVFs without a history of abrupt thrombosis (n-abtAVF). The lowest thrombosis rate was observed for n-abtAVFs, followed up periodically under the outpatient or angiographic sub-protocols.

Conclusions

AVFs with a history of abrupt thrombosis had a high restenosis rate, and periodic angiographic follow-up with a mean interval of 103.5 days was presumed appropriate. For selected populations, such as salvage-challenging AVFs, periodic outpatient or angiographic follow-up was mandatory to extend their usable lives for hemodialysis.

Urology & Nephrology

Hemodialysis

Arteriovenous Fistula

Follow-up studies

Angioplasty

Balloon

Physical Examination

In practice, we observed a subgroup of hemodialysis fistulas (AVFs) with a history of abrupt thrombosis (abtAVF), requiring more frequent interventions for AVF thrombosis than those without such history (n-abtAVF). Abrupt thrombosis is a form of thrombosis that occurs unexpectedly and without being preceded by AVF dysfunction during dialysis. We hypothesized that the abtAVFs had a fast restenosis rate and that our current follow-up protocol failed to alert us in time to perform preemptive treatment before the occurrence of thrombosis. For dysfunctional AVFs, dilatation of the culprit stenosis was shown to simultaneously lower the risk of thrombosis. However, for AVFs where stenosis did not cause AVF dysfunction, detection of the thrombosis-high-risk stenosis (1, 2), and performance of preemptive treatment were required to prevent abrupt thrombosis. Unlike hemodialysis staff, interventionists do not see patients once every 2 days. Therefore, patients must be called back periodically to observe the severity of stenosis and determine when it should be treated. The time interval for patients with an AVF to be called back following angioplasty should be based on the restenosis rate. Stenoses with faster restenosis rates require a shorter treatment interval, and more frequent interventions. We therefore conducted the present retrospective cohort study to characterize abtAVFs. Additionally, we examined our follow-up protocols and sought to determine which one is optimal for the abtAVFs.

Definitions

AVF with abrupt thrombosis (abtAVF): A thrombotic AVF with at least a > 50% stenosis identified during ultrasound or angiography. The thrombosis occurred unexpectedly and without a preceding dysfunction, such as inadequate inflow or high dynamic venous pressure during hemodialysis. AVF without a history of abrupt thrombosis (n-abtAVF): These AVFs could have been dysfunctional or thrombotic. The thrombosis usually occurred by deferred correction of the culprit stenosis for AVF dysfunction. Positive quantitative physical examination indicators (qPE indicators) can detect severe stenosis-related hemodynamic derangement in stenoses with minimal luminal stenosis area of < 2 mm (1). To save time, we did not perform a systemic physical examination (PE). Rather, we focused on the detection of qPE indicators, which included: 1) No pulse on palpation over the arterial cannulation site; 2) No detection of a pulse downstream of the stenosis in the inflow segment of an AVF (sPPL = 0); and 3) An outflow score of 1- or PE significant outflow stenosis (PESOS) for detecting outflow stenosis. Thrombosis-high-risk-stenosis (THRS): In the literature, THRS is a stenosis that is both anatomically (> 50% or minimal luminal diameter < 2 mm) and hemodynamically (Qa < 350, PSVR > 2, dQa > 25%) significant (2). THRS was considered hemodynamically significant in the present study when a positive qPE indicator was detected. Index of patency function (IPF): IPF was the time interval between the index procedure at enrollment and the end of the study or AVF abandonment divided by the number of interventions to maintain the access circuit for hemodialysis. IPF can be considered the mean time between reinterventions (3). Restenosis interval and restenosis rate: Restenosis interval is the time from when a stenosis is fully dilated to when it is narrowed again to meet the action criteria for angioplasty. For a given period, the shorter the stenosis interval, the higher the restenosis rate. The protocol rate refers to the restenosis rate for AVFs under a given follow-up protocol. These are the on-demand, outpatient, and angiographic sub-protocols in the present study; the target rate refers to the restenosis rate for a given follow-up group of AVFs, such as the abtAVF and n-abtAVF(periodic) groups. The protocol rate should be greater than or equal to the target rate to allow time for the THRS to be dilated before AVF thrombosis occurs.

Patient population

This study was based on data collected prospectively from November 2021 to February 2022. During the study period, all AVFs and arteriovenous grafts (AVGs) were treated and followed according to our routine protocols. Informed consent for treatment was obtained from each participant included in the study. Patients referred to our institution for treatment of vascular access (VA) sites were enrolled in this study. The patients' electronic imaging and medical records were reviewed after approval was obtained from our hospital's institutional review board committee. Inclusion criteria were as follows: 1) Mature AVF and AVG (> 6 months old) that was superficial and visible at least around the arterial and venous cannulation segments; 2) Dysfunctional AVFs that had been referred to us because of inadequate inflow (Qb < 250 ml/min), elevated dynamic intra-access pressure (> 180–200 mmHg) during dialysis or prolonged needle-site bleeding following dialysis, difficult needling, or inadequate clearance; 3) AVFs without dysfunction during dialysis that had been referred to us for treatment because abnormal PE results suggested the presence of VA site stenosis, including abnormal thrill and pulse on palpation, or decreased/abnormal bruit on auscultation. The following VA sites were excluded: AVGs, hemodialysis catheters, immature fistulas, poor candidates for performing a PE to detect stenosis (calcification, deeply located), and AVFs that were treated only once in our angiographic suite. Additionally, thrombotic AVFs without a detectable > 50% stenosis on angiography or sonography were excluded.

Clinical indicators for detection of stenoses and the action criteria for angioplasty

In the present study, the clinical indicators described below were used for clinical monitoring (Table 1). The accuracy of qPE indicators for detecting < 2-mm stenoses was recently verified (1).

Table 1

Diagnostic elements of the clinical indicators
	Inflow stenosis	Outflow stenosis	Needling site stenosis	Thrombosis and others
qPE indicators	1) No pulse on compression over the arterial needling area; 2) No pulse detected downstream of the detected inflow stenosis (sPPL = 0).	1) Bounding pulse with no thrill on finger compression, and upon arm elevation, there was a systolic-only thrill (1-) or no thrill (PESOS).	A localized jet thrill at or around the needling site.	Hard on palpation without thrill/pulse or bruit.
Hemodialysis indicators (4)	1) Inability to achieve the target dialysis blood flow, tube shaking; 2) > 20–25% decrease of Qb.	1) Prolonged bleeding; 2) Dynamic venous pressure > 180–200 mmHg.	1) Aspiration of clots; 2) New difficulty with cannulation when previously not a problem.	Kt/V < 1.2 or URR < 65.

The action criteria for angioplasty were as follows: 1) A > 50% stenosis with at least one positive hemodialysis indicator; 2) A > 50% or < 2mm stenosis with at least one positive qPE indicator but no positive hemodialysis indicator (4).

Follow-up protocol and sub-protocols for follow-up of AVFs after angioplasty

Our follow-up protocol includes three sub-protocols for different situations that may be encountered during AVF follow-up.

The on-demand (od) sub-protocol (Fig. 1a): This sub-protocol was for detecting stenoses by clinical monitoring. Patients followed up under this protocol returned for an outpatient AVF check only when positive clinical indicators such as AVF dysfunction were observed during dialysis, or there were abnormal findings on PE. If a culprit stenosis was detected on sonography, the stenosis was slated for angioplasty.
The outpatient (opd) sub-protocol (Fig. 1b): This sub-protocol was for detecting stenoses for preemptive intervention by periodic outpatient ultrasound and PE check of AVFs. Patients under this protocol generally returned at an interval of 2–3 months. At the outpatient visit, if point-of-care ultrasound detected a THRS, angioplasty was slated whether AVF dysfunction occurred or not.
The angiographic (ang) sub-protocol (Fig. 1c): This sub-protocol was for performing preemptive intervention by detecting and treating any > 50% stenoses during the same session as the angiographic study. Patients under this protocol returned periodically for angiographic checks of AVF stenosis, generally at an interval of 2–4 months. If a > 50% stenosis was detected on angiography, subsequent angioplasty was performed.

Selection of follow-up sub-protocols (Fig. 2):

abtAVFs were eligible for periodic follow-up under either the opd or ang sub-protocols. For n-abtAVFs and IPF ≥ 4 months, patients could choose to be followed up under the od or bi-monthly opd sub-protocol. For n-abtAVFs with IPF < 4 months, we adopted the ang or monthly opd sub-protocol.

Outcome measures for the protocol and sub-protocol follow-ups

The following parameters were used to assess the follow-up outcomes of the protocol and sub-protocols: 1) Thrombosis rate and thrombosis-free primary patency, 2) AVF loss rate and secondary patency, and 3) The restenosis rate for AVFs under the protocol and each sub-protocol (the protocol rates).

We did not report restenosis rates as did Razdan et al. (5) by calculating the % luminal reduction per day or month. However, it was possible to determine the relative restenosis rate, either faster or slower, between two given groups, according to the following rules:

For two groups with insignificantly different thrombosis rates and procedure rates, they had a similar restenosis rate.
For two groups with insignificantly different thrombosis rates, the group requiring a higher procedure rate had a faster restenosis rate.
For two groups with insignificantly different procedure rates, the group that yielded a higher thrombosis rate had a faster restenosis rate.
For two groups with similar restenosis rates, the group with a higher procedure rate yielded a lower thrombosis rate.

Characterization of AVFs with a history of abrupt thrombosis

Identification of abtAVFs: We reviewed the electronic medical records and referral sheets of patients enrolled during the study period. For thrombotic AVFs followed up under the od sub-protocol, we routinely questioned the patients or their dialysis staff, and reviewed their referral sheets to determine if there were any dysfunctions during dialysis, episodes of low systemic blood pressure (< 90 mmHg), or overzealous compression of the access site before the AVF thrombosis occurred. If none of these conditions were present, the AVF was considered an abtAVF. We routinely noted this in patients' electronic procedure reports, and following treatment, these abtAVFs were followed up periodically, according to either the opd or ang sub-protocol.

Characterization of abtAVFs: The target follow-up groups in this study were the abtAVF, n-abtAVF, n-abtAVF(od), and n-abtAVF(periodic) groups. We compared the outcome measures in the abtAVF group with those in the other target groups.

Statistical analysis

Thrombosis rate, AVF loss rate, and procedure rate were calculated and are presented as the number of events/patient-year (/pt-yr). Poisson's analysis was used to estimate differences in rates. The thrombosis-free primary patency and secondary patency were calculated using survival analysis with the Kaplan–Meier method. Between-group comparisons of IPF were performed using the unpaired t-test. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis and the aforementioned analyses were performed using Prism Version 9.0 for Mac software (GraphPad Software, La Jolla, CA, USA).

A total of 505 VA sites in 505 patients were treated during the study period. Of them, 227 AVFs were enrolled. The study flow diagram is shown in Fig. 3. There were 93 male and 134 female with a mean age of 62.1 ± 1.6 years, ranged from 24 to 87. As to the AVF types, there were 151 radiocephalic, 64 brachiocephalic, 9 brachiobasilic and 3 Gracz’s AVFs. The patient data by the sub-protocols were listed in Table 1.

	Age	Gender	AVF type
		M() = male(count); F() = female(count)	RC = radiocephalic; BC = brachiocephalic; BB = brachiobasilic; GZ = Gracz’s
od	62.0 ± 2.2	M(59); F(62)	RC(87), BC(28), BB(5), GZ(1)
opd	60.6 ± 3.7	M(21), F(32)	RC(39), BC(13), GZ(1)
ang	64.1 ± 2.8	M(13), F(40)	C(25), BC(23), BB(4), GZ(1)

Outcome measures of the protocol and sub-protocol follow-ups

The follow-up outcome measures for the protocol (overall) and for each sub-protocol are shown in Fig. 4.

The follow-up outcomes for the protocol were as follows: for AVFs with a restenosis interval of ≥ 4 months followed under the od or opd sub-protocol, a procedure rate of 1.587–1.872/pt-yr may maintain the thrombosis rate at 0.072–0.086/pt-yr, whereas for AVFs with a restenosis interval of < 4 months followed under the ang sub-protocol, a procedure rate of 3.294/pt-yr may maintain the thrombosis rate at 0.060/pt-yr. The thrombosis rate among the three sub-protocols was not statistically different, indicating the performances of the three sub-protocols for prevention of AVF thrombosis were equivalent. The ang sub-protocol required the highest procedure rate and the od sub-protocol required the lowest. Moreover, the IPF of the ang sub-protocol was the shortest at 103.5 days, while that of the od sub-protocol was the longest at 234.4 days.

The thrombosis-free primary patency was similar among the three sub-groups (Fig. 5a). Regarding AVFs in the ang sub-protocol, the secondary patency was significantly inferior to that in the od sub-protocol (Fig. 5b).

Identification and characterization of abtAVFs

A total of 33 (14.5%) abtAVFs were identified. The outcome measures of abtAVFs were compared with those of other target groups, including the n-abtAVF, n-abtAVF(od), and n-abtAVF(periodic) groups. The thrombosis rate, AVF loss rate, procedure rate, and IPF for abtAVF and the other target follow-up groups are shown in Fig. 6a and 6b.

Among all target follow-up groups, the abtAVF group had the highest thrombosis rate (0.237/pt-yr) and AVF loss rate (0.027/pt-yr). The n-abtAVF(periodic) group had the lowest thrombosis rate (0.014/pt-yr). The relative protocol rates and target rates from highest to lowest (fast to slow) were as follows: abtAVF≑ang > opd > od = n-abtAVF(od) > overall≑n-abtAVF≑n-abtAVF(periodic).

The IPF of the abtAVF, n-abtAVF, and n-abtAVF(periodic) groups were 115.6 days, 237 days, and 149.8 days, respectively.

The thrombosis-free primary patency at 1, 4, and 8 years for each target follow-up group is shown in Table 2, and the survival plot is shown in Fig. 7a.

The abtAVF group had the lowest 1-year thrombosis-free primary patency, and the n-abtAVF(periodic) group had the highest.

Table 2

The thrombosis rate and thrombosis-free primary patency of the target follow-up groups.
	Thrombosis rate/pt-yr	Thrombosis-free primary patency at 1, 4, and 8 years
abtAVF	0.237	78.3%, 69.2%, 69.2%
overall	0.068	94.1%, 80.8%, 60.9%
n-abtAVF	0.042	96.8%, 82.9%, 62.3%
n-abtAVF(od)	0.086	94.8%, 77.8%, 53.4%
n-abtAVF(periodic)	0.014	100%, 98.3%, 98.3%

The AVF loss rate and secondary patency of the abtAVF group and other target follow-up groups are shown in Table 3.

Table 3

The AVF loss rate and secondary patency of the target follow-up groups.
	AVF loss rate/pt-yr	Secondary patency at 1 and 8 years
abtAVF	0.027	96.0%, 85.3%
overall	0.007	99.5%, 94.6%
n-abtAVF	0.006	100%, 95.9%
n-abtAVF(od)	0.002	100%, 97.8%
n-abtAVF(periodic)	0.004	100%, 93.0%

The abtAVF group had a significantly higher AVF loss rate than the other target follow-up groups. Regarding the secondary patency, no significant differences were observed among the target follow-up groups (Fig. 7b).

A total of 74 episodes of thrombosis were noted in this study, and 68 salvage procedures were successfully performed (salvage success rate = 91.9%). A total of six AVFs were abandoned, four under the ang sub-protocol (66.7%), one under the opd sub-protocol, and one under the od sub-protocol. Additionally, two abandoned AVFs were noted in the abtAVF group (one thrombotic mega-fistula and one rapid restenosis) and four in the n-abtAVF group. The causes of AVF loss were as follows:

Rapid recurrence of stenosis (n = 2, ang sub-protocol). For one patient, the on-duty surgeon preferred to create a new VA site rather than salvage; the other patient could not afford a stent graft.
Thrombosed and tortuous mega-fistula (n = 2, ang sub-protocol).
Ruptured ulcer of a pseudoaneurysm (n = 1, od sub-protocol).
A thrombotic AVF with the eighth note deformity, where there was no recanalizable outflow vein (n = 1, opd sub-protocol).

The primary findings of this study were as follows: 1) The protocol yielded an overall thrombosis rate of 0.068/pt-yr with a procedure rate of 1.43/pt-yr. There was no difference in the thrombosis rate among the three sub-protocols. 2) The target rate of abtAVF was comparable with the protocol rate of the ang sub-protocol group. 3) The abtAVF group had significantly higher thrombosis and AVF loss rates, and a lower thrombosis-free primary patency compared with the n-abtAVF group. However, there were no significant differences in the secondary patency. 4) The n-abtAVF(periodic) group had the lowest thrombosis rate. 5) The n-abtAVF (od) group had a higher thrombosis rate, but a lower procedure rate compared with the n-abtAVF(periodic) group.

To avoid AVF thrombosis, a follow-up protocol with a protocol rate greater than or equal to the target rate of the follow-up group should be selected to prevent AVF thrombosis. In the present study, the target rate of the abtAVF group and the protocol rate of the ang sub-protocol were similar, while the thrombosis rate of the abtAVF group was significantly higher than that of the ang sub-protocol. We believe this may have been attributed to a lower procedure rate in the abtAVF group. Among the 33 abtAVFs, only 14 were followed under the ang sub-protocol, while the others were followed under the opd sub-protocol. Under the opd sub-protocol, the interval from stenosis detection to angioplasty was approximately 2 weeks. Such a deferred correction of stenosis may lead to AVF thrombosis. Therefore, we believe that if the abtAVFs were followed under the ang sub-protocol, at the expense of an increased procedure rate, their thrombosis rates could have been reduced. That is, the appropriate IPF for the abtAVFs may be 103.5 days rather than 115.6 days.

Regarding the n-abtAVF group, if the goal of follow-up was to pursue a low thrombosis rate, the periodic sub-protocols (opd or ang) were considered appropriate because they yielded the lowest thrombosis rate. If patients wanted to undergo a procedure only when there was AVF dysfunction and the interventionist considered that their AVFs were not difficult to salvage once thrombosis occurred, the od sub-protocol was a reasonable option, because the goal of follow-up is to maintain an acceptably higher thrombosis rate compared with other target follow-up groups by following a sub-protocol with a lower procedure rate.

According to Quencer et al. (6), VA site thrombosis accounts for 65–85% of access loss. Therefore, lowering the thrombosis rate would reduce the risk of VA site loss. However, in the present study, the thrombosis rate of the abtAVF group was significantly higher than that of the n-abtAVF group, although their AVF loss rates were similar. This may have been attributed to recent innovations in endovascular techniques, which allowed us to handle challenging situations during the salvage procedure. Such innovations include endovascular bypass techniques for AVFs without recanalizable outflow veins, and the venotomy and manual propulsion technique for removal of massive thrombi (7–10). Therefore, some VA sites may have been abandoned in the past but are now salvageable.

An important question is whether pursuing a low AVF thrombosis rate should be considered a patient-important outcome measure for AVF monitoring and surveillance. According to dissenters, surveillance leads to an increased procedure rate without confidence that it extends the life of the AVF as measured by secondary patency rates (11, 12). However, other studies reported that preemptive treatment of subclinical stenosis reduced the AVF loss rate and prolonged the functional life of AVFs (13).

From the perspectives of the patient and the interventionist, we believe that pursuing a low thrombosis rate should be considered a patient-important outcome measure. In addition to the pain at balloon dilatation and thrombus propulsion during the salvage procedure, there may be severe complications, such as venotomy wound infection and bleeding, hypovolemic shock, and pulmonary embolism. Additionally, compared with simply dilating stenoses, interventionists generally require more time and use more tools to salvage thrombotic VA sites. To salvage engorged and tortuous AVFs, especially those with more than one pseudoaneurysm, the procedure may take 2–3 h, and the risk of salvage failure is relatively high.

It may be controversial to recommend pursuing a low thrombosis rate for every VA site. We believe that pursuing a low thrombosis rate should be mandatory for the following populations of VA sites:

Salvage-challenging AVFs: These AVFs have the following features: a) a thrombotic, enlarged, and tortuous AVF with one or multiple pseudoaneurysms; b) a thrombotic AVF with heavy and extensive calcifications, especially around the perianastomotic area; and c) a thrombotic AVF without recanalizable outflow veins. Once a salvage-challenging AVF develops thrombosis, the odds of achieving successful salvage become very low. That is, for salvage-challenging AVFs, avoiding thrombosis prolongs their usable lives.

Patients who have nearly exhausted all available VA sites for hemodialysis.

In the present study, the overall thrombosis-free primary patency at 1 year was 94.1%. This was comparable with the results of AVFs followed by clinical monitoring combined with Qa surveillance (87–97%) (13–15). The 1-year thrombosis-free primary patency was lowest in the abtAVF group (78.3%). However, this was superior to results of AVFs followed up exclusively by clinical monitoring (61–62%) (13, 14). The AVF loss rate of the abrupt thrombosis group (0.027/pt-yr) was comparable with rates reported previously for AVFs followed by clinical monitoring combined with the Qa surveillance (0.024–0.066/pt-yr) (13, 16).

The present study had the following limitations. 1) The study was designed and conducted retrospectively. 2) There may have been recall bias in identifying abtAVFs. 3) The follow-up protocol and sub-protocols were not verified for follow-up of AV grafts. 4) The efficacy of the ang sub-protocol for follow-up of the abtAVF group requires verification with further study.

We presumed that it might be appropriate to follow-up the AVFs with a history of abrupt thrombosis under the ang sub-protocol. For AVFs without a history of abrupt thrombosis, if the goal of follow-up is to pursue a low thrombosis rate, such as for salvage-challenging AVFs, they should be followed up periodically under the opd or ang sub-protocol. If the thrombotic AVFs were not difficult to salvage and patients want to undergo a procedure only when there is a positive clinical indicator, they can be followed up under the od sub-protocol.

AVF: Arteriovenous fistula; VA site: hemodialysis vascular access site; abtAVF: AVF with a history of abrupt thrombosis; n-abtAVF: AVF without a history of abrupt thrombosis; Physical examination; ROC: Receiver-operator curve.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate: The study was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Helsinki Declaration. The electronic image archives and medical records were reviewed after approval of the IRB committee of the Yuan’s General Hospital. Because this was a retrospective study of routinely collected data, informed consent to participation was not required. All individuals included in the study had consented to the relevant procedures.

Consent for publication: Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials: The datasets generated and/ or analyzed during the current the study is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Competing interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Funding: None.

Author’s contributions: M.C. and M.W conceived and designed the study. M.C. and L.C. performed treatment procedures and acquired procedure-related ultrasound and angiographic images. M.C. performed physical examination for the hemodialysis fistulas included in this study. M.C. and M.W. analyzed and interpreted the data. M.C. drafted this manuscript. All authors have read and approved the manuscript.

Acknowledgements: None.

Chen MCY, Weng MJ, Chao LH, Wu MYW, Liu YC, Chi WC. Quantitative physical examination indicators to detect patients with stenosis at a high risk of thrombosis at hemodialysis vascular access sites: A retrospective case–control study. J Vasc Access. 2021;112972982110455.
Roca-Tey R, Ibeas J, Moreno T, Gruss E, Merino JL, Vallespín J, Hernán D, Arribas P; Spanish Multidisciplinary Vascular Access Group (GEMAV). Dialysis arteriovenous access monitoring and surveillance according to the 2017 Spanish Guidelines. J Vasc Access. 2018;19:422–429.
Dolmatch B, Waheed U, Balamuthusamy S, Hoggard J, Settlage R, AVeVA Trial Investigators. Prospective, Multi-center Clinical Study of the Covera Vascular Covered Stent in the Treatment of Stenosis at the Graft-Vein Anastomosis of Dysfunctional Hemodialysis Access Grafts. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2022;33:479–488.
Lok CE, Huber TS, Lee T, Shenoy S, Yevzlin AS, Abreo K, Allon M, Asif A, Astor BC, Glickman MH, Graham J, Moist LM, Rajan DK, Roberts C, Vachharajani TJ, Valentini RP; National Kidney Foundation. KDOQI Clinical Practice Guideline for Vascular Access: 2019 Update. Am J Kidney Dis. 2020;75:S1–164.
Marcus P, Echeverria A, Cheung M, Kfoury E, Shim K, Lin PH. Early Cannulation of Bovine Carotid Artery Graft Reduces Tunneled Dialysis Catheter-Related Complications: A Comparison of Bovine Carotid Artery Graft Versus Expanded Polytetrafluoroethylene Grafts in Hemodialysis Access. Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2019;53:104–11.
Quencer KB, Friedman T. Declotting the Thrombosed Access. Techniques Vasc Interventional Radiology. 2017;20:38–47.
Chen MCY, Weng MJ, Liang HL. Endovascular bypass for salvage of vascular access in hemodialysis catheter-consigned patients. J Vasc Access. 2018;19:585–592.
Chen MCY, Weng MJ. The pipeline technique: a simple endovascular technique for creation of a jump graft bypass. J Vasc Access. 2015;17:93–7.
Chen MCY, Wang YC, Weng MJ. Percutaneous Creation of Bare Intervascular Tunnels for Salvage of Thrombosed Hemodialysis Fistulas Without Recanalizable Outflow. Cardiovasc Inter Rad. 2014;38:894–902.
Won JH, Bista AB, Bae JI, Oh CK, Park SI, Lee JH, Jeon GS. A venotomy and manual propulsion technique to treat native arteriovenous fistulas occluded by thrombi. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;198:460–5.
Aragoncillo I, Amézquita Y, Caldés S, Abad S, Vega A, Cirugeda A, Moratilla C, Ibeas J, Roca-Tey R, Fernández C, Quiroga B, Blanco A, Villaverde M, Ruiz C, Martín B, Ruiz AM, Ampuero J, López-Gómez JM, de Alvaro F. The Impact of Access Blood Flow Surveillance on Reduction of Thrombosis in Native Arteriovenous Fistula: A Randomized Clinical Trial. J Vasc Access. 2015;17:13–9.
Moist L, Lok CE. Con: Vascular access surveillance in mature fistulas: is it worthwhile? Nephrol Dial Transpl. 2019;34:1106–11.
Tessitore N, Lipari G, Poli A, Bedogna V, Baggio E, Loschiavo C, Mansueto G, Lupo A. Can blood flow surveillance and pre-emptive repair of subclinical stenosis prolong the useful life of arteriovenous fistulae? A randomized controlled study. Nephrol Dial Transpl. 2004;19:2325–33.
Tessitore N, Mansueto G, Bedogna V, Lipari G, Poli A, Gammaro L, Baggio E, Morana G, Loschiavo C, Laudon A, Oldrizzi L, Maschio G. A Prospective Controlled Trial on Effect of Percutaneous Transluminal Angioplasty on Functioning Arteriovenous Fistulae Survival. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2003;14:1623–7.
Tessitore N, Mansueto G, Lipari G, Bedogna V, Tardivo S, Baggio E, Cenzi D, Carbognin G, Poli A, Lupo A. Endovascular versus Surgical Preemptive Repair of Forearm Arteriovenous Fistula Juxta-Anastomotic Stenosis: Analysis of Data Collected Prospectively from 1999 to 2004. Clin J Am Soc Nephro. 2006;1:448–54.
Tessitore N, Bedogna V, Poli A, Lipari G, Pertile P, Baggio E, Contro A, Criscenti P, Mansueto G, Lupo A. Should current criteria for detecting and repairing arteriovenous fistula stenosis be reconsidered? Interim analysis of a randomized controlled trial. Nephrol Dial Transpl. 2014;29:179–87.

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Characterization of Hemodialysis Fistulas Experienced Abrupt Thrombosis and Determination of a Proper Follow-up Protocol: A Retrospective Cohort Study and an IR’s Prospective

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Figures

Background

Methods

Definitions

Patient population

Clinical indicators for detection of stenoses and the action criteria for angioplasty

Follow-up protocol and sub-protocols for follow-up of AVFs after angioplasty

Outcome measures for the protocol and sub-protocol follow-ups

Characterization of AVFs with a history of abrupt thrombosis

Statistical analysis

Results

Outcome measures of the protocol and sub-protocol follow-ups

Identification and characterization of abtAVFs

Discussion

Conclusions

List Of Abbreviations

Declarations

References

Status:

Version 1