Vascular access surveillance

An ongoing controversy

William D. Paulson, Louise Moist, Charmaine E. Lok

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

58 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Hemodialysis vascular access surveillance continues to be widely recommended despite ongoing controversy as to its benefit in prolonging access patency compared with clinical monitoring alone. The most common screening tests are access blood flow and dialysis venous pressure measurements. When surveillance test results cross a predetermined threshold, accesses are referred for intervention with correction of stenosis to reduce future thrombosis and prolong access survival. Current surveillance strategies have four components: (1) underlying condition; (2) screening test; (3) intervention; and (4) outcomes. However, limitations exist within each component that may prevent achieving the desired outcomes. This review discusses these limitations and their consequences. To date, randomized controlled trials have not consistently shown that surveillance improves outcomes in grafts, and there is limited evidence that surveillance reduces thrombosis without prolonging the life of native fistulae. In conclusion, current evidence does not support the concept that all accesses should undergo routine surveillance with intervention.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)132-142
Number of pages11
JournalKidney International
Volume81
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 2 2012

Fingerprint

Blood Vessels
Thrombosis
Venous Pressure
Hematologic Tests
Fistula
Renal Dialysis
Dialysis
Pathologic Constriction
Randomized Controlled Trials
Transplants

Keywords

  • arteriovenous fistula
  • arteriovenous graft
  • clinical practice guidelines
  • vascular access

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Nephrology

Cite this

Vascular access surveillance : An ongoing controversy. / Paulson, William D.; Moist, Louise; Lok, Charmaine E.

In: Kidney International, Vol. 81, No. 2, 02.01.2012, p. 132-142.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Paulson, William D. ; Moist, Louise ; Lok, Charmaine E. / Vascular access surveillance : An ongoing controversy. In: Kidney International. 2012 ; Vol. 81, No. 2. pp. 132-142.
@article{311239c5bc124d0982d7031ecf85d3e2,
title = "Vascular access surveillance: An ongoing controversy",
abstract = "Hemodialysis vascular access surveillance continues to be widely recommended despite ongoing controversy as to its benefit in prolonging access patency compared with clinical monitoring alone. The most common screening tests are access blood flow and dialysis venous pressure measurements. When surveillance test results cross a predetermined threshold, accesses are referred for intervention with correction of stenosis to reduce future thrombosis and prolong access survival. Current surveillance strategies have four components: (1) underlying condition; (2) screening test; (3) intervention; and (4) outcomes. However, limitations exist within each component that may prevent achieving the desired outcomes. This review discusses these limitations and their consequences. To date, randomized controlled trials have not consistently shown that surveillance improves outcomes in grafts, and there is limited evidence that surveillance reduces thrombosis without prolonging the life of native fistulae. In conclusion, current evidence does not support the concept that all accesses should undergo routine surveillance with intervention.",
keywords = "arteriovenous fistula, arteriovenous graft, clinical practice guidelines, vascular access",
author = "Paulson, {William D.} and Louise Moist and Lok, {Charmaine E.}",
year = "2012",
month = "1",
day = "2",
doi = "10.1038/ki.2011.337",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "81",
pages = "132--142",
journal = "Kidney International",
issn = "0085-2538",
publisher = "Nature Publishing Group",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Vascular access surveillance

T2 - An ongoing controversy

AU - Paulson, William D.

AU - Moist, Louise

AU - Lok, Charmaine E.

PY - 2012/1/2

Y1 - 2012/1/2

N2 - Hemodialysis vascular access surveillance continues to be widely recommended despite ongoing controversy as to its benefit in prolonging access patency compared with clinical monitoring alone. The most common screening tests are access blood flow and dialysis venous pressure measurements. When surveillance test results cross a predetermined threshold, accesses are referred for intervention with correction of stenosis to reduce future thrombosis and prolong access survival. Current surveillance strategies have four components: (1) underlying condition; (2) screening test; (3) intervention; and (4) outcomes. However, limitations exist within each component that may prevent achieving the desired outcomes. This review discusses these limitations and their consequences. To date, randomized controlled trials have not consistently shown that surveillance improves outcomes in grafts, and there is limited evidence that surveillance reduces thrombosis without prolonging the life of native fistulae. In conclusion, current evidence does not support the concept that all accesses should undergo routine surveillance with intervention.

AB - Hemodialysis vascular access surveillance continues to be widely recommended despite ongoing controversy as to its benefit in prolonging access patency compared with clinical monitoring alone. The most common screening tests are access blood flow and dialysis venous pressure measurements. When surveillance test results cross a predetermined threshold, accesses are referred for intervention with correction of stenosis to reduce future thrombosis and prolong access survival. Current surveillance strategies have four components: (1) underlying condition; (2) screening test; (3) intervention; and (4) outcomes. However, limitations exist within each component that may prevent achieving the desired outcomes. This review discusses these limitations and their consequences. To date, randomized controlled trials have not consistently shown that surveillance improves outcomes in grafts, and there is limited evidence that surveillance reduces thrombosis without prolonging the life of native fistulae. In conclusion, current evidence does not support the concept that all accesses should undergo routine surveillance with intervention.

KW - arteriovenous fistula

KW - arteriovenous graft

KW - clinical practice guidelines

KW - vascular access

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84855192261&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84855192261&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1038/ki.2011.337

DO - 10.1038/ki.2011.337

M3 - Review article

VL - 81

SP - 132

EP - 142

JO - Kidney International

JF - Kidney International

SN - 0085-2538

IS - 2

ER -