Vascular Access Surveillance: Case Study of a False Paradigm

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

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

20 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The hemodialysis vascular access surveillance controversy provides a case study of how enthusiasm for a new test or treatment can lead to adoption of a false paradigm. Paradigms are the beliefs and assumptions shared by those in a field of knowledge, and are commonly included in clinical practice guidelines. The guidelines of the National Kidney Foundation Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative recommend that arteriovenous vascular accesses undergo routine surveillance for detection and correction of stenosis. This recommendation is based on the paradigm that surveillance of access blood flow or dialysis venous pressure combined with correction of stenosis improves access outcomes. However, the quality of evidence that supports this paradigm has been widely criticized. We tested the validity of the surveillance paradigm by applying World Health Organization (WHO) criteria for evaluating screening tests to a literature review of published vascular access studies. These criteria include four components: undesired condition, screening test, intervention, and desired outcome. The WHO criteria show that surveillance as currently practiced fails all four components and provides little or no significant benefit, suggesting that surveillance is a false paradigm. Once a paradigm is established, however, challenges to its validity are usually resisted even as new evidence indicates the paradigm is not valid. Thus, it is paramount to apply rigorous criteria when developing guidelines. Regulators may help promote needed changes in paradigms when cost and safety considerations coincide.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)281-286
Number of pages6
JournalSeminars in Dialysis
Volume26
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - May 1 2013

Fingerprint

Blood Vessels
Pathologic Constriction
Guidelines
Venous Pressure
Kidney Diseases
Practice Guidelines
Renal Dialysis
Dialysis
Kidney
Safety
Costs and Cost Analysis
Therapeutics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Nephrology

Cite this

Vascular Access Surveillance : Case Study of a False Paradigm. / Paulson, William D.; Moist, Louise; Lok, Charmaine E.

In: Seminars in Dialysis, Vol. 26, No. 3, 01.05.2013, p. 281-286.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Paulson, William D. ; Moist, Louise ; Lok, Charmaine E. / Vascular Access Surveillance : Case Study of a False Paradigm. In: Seminars in Dialysis. 2013 ; Vol. 26, No. 3. pp. 281-286.
@article{ec320dff40704162a020c0e28c194a8e,
title = "Vascular Access Surveillance: Case Study of a False Paradigm",
abstract = "The hemodialysis vascular access surveillance controversy provides a case study of how enthusiasm for a new test or treatment can lead to adoption of a false paradigm. Paradigms are the beliefs and assumptions shared by those in a field of knowledge, and are commonly included in clinical practice guidelines. The guidelines of the National Kidney Foundation Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative recommend that arteriovenous vascular accesses undergo routine surveillance for detection and correction of stenosis. This recommendation is based on the paradigm that surveillance of access blood flow or dialysis venous pressure combined with correction of stenosis improves access outcomes. However, the quality of evidence that supports this paradigm has been widely criticized. We tested the validity of the surveillance paradigm by applying World Health Organization (WHO) criteria for evaluating screening tests to a literature review of published vascular access studies. These criteria include four components: undesired condition, screening test, intervention, and desired outcome. The WHO criteria show that surveillance as currently practiced fails all four components and provides little or no significant benefit, suggesting that surveillance is a false paradigm. Once a paradigm is established, however, challenges to its validity are usually resisted even as new evidence indicates the paradigm is not valid. Thus, it is paramount to apply rigorous criteria when developing guidelines. Regulators may help promote needed changes in paradigms when cost and safety considerations coincide.",
author = "Paulson, {William D.} and Louise Moist and Lok, {Charmaine E.}",
year = "2013",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/sdi.12049",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "26",
pages = "281--286",
journal = "Seminars in Dialysis",
issn = "0894-0959",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Vascular Access Surveillance

T2 - Case Study of a False Paradigm

AU - Paulson, William D.

AU - Moist, Louise

AU - Lok, Charmaine E.

PY - 2013/5/1

Y1 - 2013/5/1

N2 - The hemodialysis vascular access surveillance controversy provides a case study of how enthusiasm for a new test or treatment can lead to adoption of a false paradigm. Paradigms are the beliefs and assumptions shared by those in a field of knowledge, and are commonly included in clinical practice guidelines. The guidelines of the National Kidney Foundation Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative recommend that arteriovenous vascular accesses undergo routine surveillance for detection and correction of stenosis. This recommendation is based on the paradigm that surveillance of access blood flow or dialysis venous pressure combined with correction of stenosis improves access outcomes. However, the quality of evidence that supports this paradigm has been widely criticized. We tested the validity of the surveillance paradigm by applying World Health Organization (WHO) criteria for evaluating screening tests to a literature review of published vascular access studies. These criteria include four components: undesired condition, screening test, intervention, and desired outcome. The WHO criteria show that surveillance as currently practiced fails all four components and provides little or no significant benefit, suggesting that surveillance is a false paradigm. Once a paradigm is established, however, challenges to its validity are usually resisted even as new evidence indicates the paradigm is not valid. Thus, it is paramount to apply rigorous criteria when developing guidelines. Regulators may help promote needed changes in paradigms when cost and safety considerations coincide.

AB - The hemodialysis vascular access surveillance controversy provides a case study of how enthusiasm for a new test or treatment can lead to adoption of a false paradigm. Paradigms are the beliefs and assumptions shared by those in a field of knowledge, and are commonly included in clinical practice guidelines. The guidelines of the National Kidney Foundation Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative recommend that arteriovenous vascular accesses undergo routine surveillance for detection and correction of stenosis. This recommendation is based on the paradigm that surveillance of access blood flow or dialysis venous pressure combined with correction of stenosis improves access outcomes. However, the quality of evidence that supports this paradigm has been widely criticized. We tested the validity of the surveillance paradigm by applying World Health Organization (WHO) criteria for evaluating screening tests to a literature review of published vascular access studies. These criteria include four components: undesired condition, screening test, intervention, and desired outcome. The WHO criteria show that surveillance as currently practiced fails all four components and provides little or no significant benefit, suggesting that surveillance is a false paradigm. Once a paradigm is established, however, challenges to its validity are usually resisted even as new evidence indicates the paradigm is not valid. Thus, it is paramount to apply rigorous criteria when developing guidelines. Regulators may help promote needed changes in paradigms when cost and safety considerations coincide.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84878016007&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84878016007&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/sdi.12049

DO - 10.1111/sdi.12049

M3 - Article

C2 - 23330813

AN - SCOPUS:84878016007

VL - 26

SP - 281

EP - 286

JO - Seminars in Dialysis

JF - Seminars in Dialysis

SN - 0894-0959

IS - 3

ER -