Indications for vascular grafts as hemodialysis access: consensus from experience in Italy.

INTRODUCTION: In Italy, the use of arteriovenous grafts (AVG) is limited (1-5 %) due to different approaches to vascular access (VA) management as compared to other countries, where guidelines (which may not apply to the Italian setting) have been produced. Therefore, the Study Group (GdS) on VA of the Italian Society of Nephrology produced this position paper, providing a list of 8 recommendations built upon current guidelines. METHODS: The most controversial and innovative issues of existing guidelines have been summed up in 12 different statements. We selected 60 Italian dialysis graft experts, nephrologists and vascular surgeons (PP1SIN Study Investigators). They were asked to express their agreement/disagreement on each issue, thus creating a new method to share and exchange information. RESULTS: Most of them agreed (consensus > 90%) on specific criteria set to choose AVG over native AVF (nAVF) and tunnelled venous catheter (tVC) and on the necessary conditions to implant them. They did not fully agree on the use of AVG in obese patients, in patients at risk of developing ischemia, on the priority of AVG as an alternative to brachial-basilic fistula with vein transposition, and in case of a poorly organized setting regarding graft maintenance. Keeping in mind that the nAVF should be preferred whenever is feasible, AVGs are indicated when superficial veins are unavailable or to repair a nAVF (bridge graft). An AVG is an alternative to tVC if the expected patient survival is long enough to guarantee its clinical benefits.

Developing recommendations for vascular access for hemodialysis: Vascular Access Working Group of the Italian Society of Nephrology.

This paper presents an overview of the project carried out by the Vascular Access (VA) Working Group of the Italian Society of Nephrology with the aim of developing 4 position papers at the national level on how to choose, use, and implant the different, possible types of vascular access. The topics of the project are: 1) recommendations on the use of prosthetic arteriovenous fistulas for vascular access in hemodialysis, 2) recommendations on the use of venous catheters for hemodialysis, 3) infections induced by a venous catheter for hemodialysis, and 4) how to create and maintain a vascular access for hemodialysis. This paper also gives an explanation of the difficulties existing in Italy in the implementation of international guidelines, mostly due to significant differences in the procedures for the creation of VA, compared with the countries where most of the literature on the subject has been published. Individual position papers were drafted for each of the different topics. A list of recommendations was produced based on existing guidelines. Then these recommendations were critically reviewed by experts working in Italy, who expressed their opinion on their inclusion in position papers. The working method used to gather the opinions of the various experts is described. The final target is to provide clinicians interested in VA with updated documents on selected topics. Such documents will be updated periodically, and they will present a thorough overview of expert opinions.

[Indications for vascular grafts as dialysis access; consensus from the Italian experience]. / Indicazioni all'uso delle protesi vascolari per l'accesso emodialitico: un'esperienza Italiana basata sul consenso.

In Italy, the use of arteriovenous grafts (AVGs) is limited (1-4%) due to different approaches to vascular access management compared to other countries, where guidelines that may not apply to the Italian setting have been produced. Therefore, the Vascular Access Study Group of the Italian Society of Nephrology produced this position paper, providing a list of 8 recommendations built upon current guidelines. The most controversial and innovative issues of the existing guidelines have been summed up in 12 different topics. We selected 60 Italian dialysis graft experts, nephrologists and vascular surgeons (PP1SIN Study Investigators). They were asked to express their approval or disapproval on each issue, thus creating a new method to share and exchange information. Almost all agreed on specific criteria for the choice of AVG over native arteriovenous fistulas (AVF) and tunneled venous catheters (tVC) and on the necessary conditions to implant them. They did not fully agree on the use of AVG in obese patients and patients at risk of developing ischemia, as an alternative to brachiobasilic fistula with vein transposition, and in case of a poorly organized setting. When AVF is feasible, it should be preferred. AVGs are indicated when superficial veins are unavailable or to repair an AVF (bridge graft). An AVG is an alternative to tVC if the expected patient survival is long enough to allow clinical benefits. The ultimate choice of the graft type is made by the physician in charge of the surgical intervention. Antithrombotic prophylaxis may be justified in some cases.

[Vascular access for hemodialysis: recommendations of the Vascular Access Study Group of the Italian Society of Nephrology]. / Gli accessi vascolari per emodialisi: le raccomandazioni del Gruppo di Studio della Società Italiana di Nefrologia.

The Vascular Access Study Group of the Italian Society of Nephrology has scheduled four national studies regarding the choice, implantation and use of vascular access. Study topics will include 1) utilization of vascular grafts for hemodialysis; 2) indications and use of venous catheters; 3) tunneled central venous catheter infection; 4) organization of the implantation and repair of vascular access. After examining the difficulties in implementing international guidelines on vascular access in Italy and the differences in practice patterns between our and other countries (where the most important studies were published), the Study Group set out to prepare four position papers based on discussion of controversial aspects of the international guidelines by nephrologists and surgeons experienced in the Italian practice. An innovative operative method for verifying the consensus on vascular access practice patterns was used. The final aim was to write a document addressed to vascular access operators (surgeons and nephrologists) based on the consensus of experts on controversial vascular-access- related issues. The project will include yearly updates of the documents.

Chronic inflammation and mortality in haemodialysis: effect of different renal replacement therapies. Results from the RISCAVID study.

BACKGROUND: The 'RISchio CArdiovascolare nei pazienti afferenti all' Area Vasta In Dialisi' (RISCAVID) study is an observational and prospective trial including the whole chronic haemodialysis (HD) population in the northwest part of Tuscany (1.235 million people). The aim of the study was to elucidate the relevance of traditional and non-traditional risk factors of mortality and morbidity in HD patients as well as the impact of different HD modalities. METHODS: A total of 757 HD patients (mean age 66 +/- 14 years, mean dialytic age 70 +/- 76 months, diabetes 19%) were prospectively followed up for 30 months and all-cause mortality, cardiovascular (CV) mortality and non-fatal CV events (acute myocardial infarction and stroke) were registered. At the time of the enrolment, demographic, clinical and laboratory data of the whole population were entered into a centralized database. Serum albumin, high-sensitive C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin-6 (IL-6) and interleukin-8 (IL-8) were centrally determined at the start of the study. Patients were stratified into three groups according to the HD modality: standard bicarbonate HD (BHD) (n = 424), haemodiafiltration (HDF) with sterile bags (n = 204) and online HDF (n = 129). The Cox proportional hazards regression assessed adjusted differences in CV morbidity and mortality risk; a multivariate analysis was also performed. RESULTS: All-cause and CV mortality was 12.9%/year and 5.9%/year, respectively. Patients with combined high levels of CRP and pro-inflammatory cytokines showed an increased risk for CV (RR 1.9, P < 0.001) and all-cause mortality (RR 2.57, P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis adjusted for comorbidity and demographic showed CRP as the most powerful mortality predictor (P < 0.001) followed by IL-6. The Cox proportional hazards regression assessed that online HDF and HDF patients had a significantly increased adjusted cumulative survival than BHD (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Data at 30 months from this study showed the synergic effect of CRP and pro-inflammatory cytokines as the strong predictors of all-cause and CV mortality. HDF was associated with an improved cumulative survival independent of the dialysis dose.