John C. Lantis II, MD To what extent does proactive vascular access monitoring affect the incidence of AV access thrombosis and abandonment compared with clinical monitoring Hemodynamically significant outflow stenosis leading to thrombosis is the most common cause of prosthetic access abandonment Early studies suggested idntification and correction of these stenosis could prevent thrombosis and prolong graft longevity RCTs have had variable results The National Kidney Foundation The Canadian Society of Nephrology Caring for Australians with Renal Impairment Recommend frequent, regular surveillance with physical exam an some form of serial access flow measurements Nine studies (1363 patients) Surveillance vs. clinical monitoring Surveillance followed by intervention led to a non-significant reduction in risk of thrombosis (.82) …..and a non-significant reduction in abandonment (.80) Three studies (207 patients) compared the effect of vascular intervention vs. observation in patients with abnormal surveillance results Intervention led to a significant reduction in the risk of access thrombosis (0.53) …and abandonment (0.76) 2006 Robbin Chronic HD – mean follow up 670 days Prosthetic only Surveillance ▪ 65 pts ▪ US every 120 days ▪ Thrombosis 18, abandonment 27 Control ▪ 61 pts ▪ Physical exam/HD parameters TIW ▪ Thrombosis 27, abandonment 26 2006 Polkinghorne Chronic HD – mean follow up 558 days Autogenous only Surveillance ▪ 68 pts ▪ Blood flow every 30 days ▪ Thrombosis 6 Control ▪ 67 pts ▪ Physical exam/dynamic venous pressure TIW ▪ Thrombosis 4 2005 Malik Chronic HD – mean follow up 670 days Prosthetic 216, Autogenous 147 Surveillance ▪ 291 pts ▪ Urea recirculation, dynamic and static venous pressure, ultrasound – weekly ▪ Abandonment 7 Control ▪ 72 pts ▪ No access monitoring ▪ Abandonment 28 The value of surveillance strongly depends on the adequacy of clinical monitoring Clinical monitoring by skilled personnel has a positive predictive value of 70 to 90% in prosthetic grafts, a 38% sensitivity and 90% specificity Monitoring – is physical exam per DOQI guidelines Absent thrill, pulsatile graft, abnormal auscultation, persistent edema, venous collaterals on the chest wall Surveillance – refer to tests Serial access flow measurements Serial measurement of static dialysis venous pressure Prepump arterial pressure Duplex ultrasound screening flow rates as measured at end of dialysis < 600 ml/min Or a decrease of 25% Most useful for autogenous fistula Reverse the arterial and venous lines measuring the rate of change in ultrasound transmission in the venous line after saline DOQI recommends: Monthly measurement Primarily for grafts (Dynamic VDP) – measured at low HD flow of 200 ml/min is a relative poor marker, too many variables Static VDP – at no dialysis flow Ratio to SBP >0.4 suggestive of stenosis >mean pressure ratio is 0.5 Should use as a trending tool, not a single measurement Indicitive of the ease with which blood is drawn from the access at any particular setting New autogenous access, if they have a problem it is at the arterial inflow Therefore, have an excessively negative arterial dialysis pressure Useful in new dialysis fistulae PSV at the graft venous anastomosis PSV > 2.0 to immediate upstream velocities is predictive Positive predictive value of 80% Note although thrombosis rates are lower, actual access survival is no different in the two groups However, lower incidence of thrombosis may translate into a reduction in access related costs and hospitalizations RR of access thrombosis Surveillance 90/406 No surveillance 92/387 RR of access abandonment Surveillance 94/614 No surveillance 88/347 Very low quality evidence Suggests that serial surveillance of asymptomatic AV access, accompanied by intervention if an abnormality is found, tends to decrease thrombosis and abandonment vs. no surveillance This difference is not statistically significant Regular clinical monitoring (inspection, palpation, auscultation and monitoring for prolonged bleeding after needle withdrawal) to detect access dysfunction –very low quality evidence Suggest access flow monitoring or static dialysis venous pressures for routine surveillance – very low quality evidence Suggest performing a Duplex ultrasound study or contrast imaging in accesses that display clinical signs of dysfunction or abnormal routine surveillance – very low quality evidence