ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: It is assumed that identification and correction of asymptomatic stenoses in the vascular access circuit will prevent thrombosis that would require urgent intervention to continue hemodialysis treatment. However, the evidence base for this assumption is limited. Recent international clinical practice guidelines reach different conclusions on the use of surveillance for vascular access flow dysfunction and recommend further research to inform clinical practice. METHODS: The FLOW trial is a double-blind, multicenter, randomized controlled trial with a 1:1 individual participant treatment allocation ratio over two study arms. In the intervention group, only symptomatic vascular access stenoses detected by clinical monitoring are treated, whereas in the comparison group asymptomatic stenoses detected by surveillance using monthly dilution flow measurements are treated as well. Hemodialysis patients with a functional arteriovenous vascular access are enrolled. The primary outcome is the access-related intervention rate that will be analyzed using a general linear model with Poisson distribution. Secondary outcomes include patient satisfaction, access-related serious adverse events, and quality of the surveillance process. A cost effectiveness analysis and budget impact analysis will also be conducted. The study requires 828 patient-years of follow-up in 417 participants to detect a difference of 0.25 access-related interventions per year between study groups. DISCUSSION: As one of the largest randomized controlled trials assessing the clinical impact of vascular access surveillance using a strong double-blinded study design, we believe the FLOW trial will provide much-needed evidence to improve vascular access care for hemodialysis patients.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Central venous catheters (CVC) remain a commonly used vascular access option in haemodialysis, despite guidelines advising to preferably use arteriovenous fistulae. Compared to younger patients, the risk-benefit ratio of CVC in older patients might be more beneficial, but previous studies mainly focussed on catheter-related bacteraemia and/or assessed tunnelled CVC (TCVC) only. This study's aim was to compare all catheter-related infections and malfunctions in older patients with younger patients using all CVC subtypes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used data from DUCATHO, a multicentre observational cohort study in The Netherlands. All adult patients in whom a CVC was placed for haemodialysis between 2012 and 2016 were included. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of catheter-related infections, comparing patients aged ⩾70 years with patients aged <70 years (reference). As secondary endpoints, catheter malfunctions and catheter removal due to either infection or malfunction were assessed. Using Cox proportional hazards and recurrent events modelling, hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated with adjustment of prespecified confounders. Additionally, endpoints were assessed for non-tunnelled CVC (NTCVC) and TCVC separately. RESULTS: A total of 1595 patients with 2731 CVC (66.5% NTCVC, 33.1% TCVC) were included. Of these patients, 1001 (62.8%) were aged <70 years and 594 (37.2%) ⩾70 years. No statistically significant difference was found for the occurrence of catheter-related infections (adjusted HR 0.80-95% CI 0.62-1.02), catheter malfunction (adjusted HR 0.94-95% CI 0.75-1.17) and catheter removal due to infection or malfunction (adjusted HR 0.94-95% CI 0.80-1.11). Results were comparable when assessing NTCVC and TCVC separately. CONCLUSION: Patients aged ⩾70 to <70 years have a comparable risk for the occurrence of catheter-related infections and catheter malfunction. These findings may help when discussing treatment options with older patients starting haemodialysis and may inform the current debate on the best vascular access for these patients.
