[Clinical and economic repercussions of the use of tunneled haemodialysis catheters in a health area]. / Repercusiones clínicas y económicas del uso de catéteres tunelizados de hemodiálisis en un área sanitaria.

INTRODUCTION: Tunneled catheters in hemodialysis are associated with poor prognosis, however, few prospective studies have been designed to specifically evaluate this aspect. The objective has been evaluate the impact of tunneled catheter in patient mortality and costs attributable to this procedure. METHODS: A seven years prospective cohort study was performed in all patients starting hemodialysis in our health care area adjusting for comorbidity and albumin. The study comprised 260 patients with Charlson index 7.05 +/- 2.8 (age 65.5 years, 62.3% males, 25% with diabetes mellitus and 37.7% with a previous cardiovascular event. RESULTS: The first vascular access was a catheter in 47.3%, PTFE in 11.2% and native arteriovenous fistula in 41.5%. Minimum follow-up was one year, with an average of 2.31 years/patient. The mortality risk adjusted for comorbidity was greater among the patients that started with catheterization, HR: 1.86 [1.11-3.05]. This negative effect was observed in 57.30% of those subjected to catheterization at any stage (HR: 1.68 [1.00-2.84] and proved to be time dependent, i.e., the longer catheterization, the greater the risk: HR: 7.66 [3.34-17.54] third versus first tertil. The cost directly attributable to catheter use was 563.31 euros/month. All poor prognosis groups showed lower albumin and hemoglobin levels, without differences in efficacy. CONCLUSION: Tunneled catheter use at any time is associated with an increased risk of death. This effect increases with the duration of catheterization, both circumstances are independent of patient comorbidity at time start of hemodialysis and implies a higher net cost.

Repercusiones clínicas y económicas del uso de catéteres tunelizados de hemodiálisis en un área sanitaria / No disponible

Introducción: el uso de catéteres en hemodiálisis se asocia a un gran número de complicaciones. Sin embargo, se han realizado pocos estudios diseñados específicamente para evaluar este problema. Los objetivos del estudio han sido conocer el impacto en la supervivencia del paciente y el gasto económico que implica la utilización de catéteres. Métodos: estudio observacional y prospectivo histórico de siete años de duración en 260 pacientes incidentes en hemodiálisis en nuestra área de salud, ajustado a la comorbilidad y albúmina al inicio de la hemodiálisis. La media de edad fue de 65,5 ± 15,2 años, 62,3% varones, 25% diabéticos. La media del índice de comorbilidad de Charlson fue de 7,05 ± 2,8. Resultados: el 47,3% de los pacientes inicia hemodiálisis con catéter, el 41,5% con FAV-auto y 11,2% con FAV-PTFE. El seguimiento medio fue 2,31 años/paciente. El riesgo de mortalidad ajustado por comorbilidad fue mayor para los que inician hemodiálisis con un catéter, HR:1,86 (1,11-3,05). Este efecto negativo también se observó en el 57,3% de pacientes que a lo largo del seguimiento requirieron un catéter, HR: 1,68 (1,00-2,84) y, además, fue tiempo dependiente; a mayor tiempo con catéter, mayor mortalidad: HR 7,66 (3,34-17,54), tertil 3 vs. tertil 1. El coste del empleo mes/catéter fue de 561,31 euros. Conclusiones: el uso de catéteres tunelizados es un factor independientemente asociado con la mortalidad de los pacientes, tanto al inicio como a lo largo del seguimiento, es tiempo dependiente y conlleva un elevado coste económico (AU)

Introducction: Tunneled catheters in hemodialysis are associated with poor prognosis, however, few prospective studies have been designed to specifically evaluate this aspect. The objective has been evaluate the impact of tunneled catheter inpatient mortality and costs attributable to this procedure. Methods: A seven years prospective cohort study was performed in all patients starting hemodialysis in our health care area adjusting for comorbidity and albumin. The study comprised 260patients with Charlson index 7.05 ± 2.8 (age 65.5 years, 62.3%males, 25% with diabetes mellitus and 37.7% with a previous cardiovascular event. Results: The first vascular access was a catheter in 47.3%, PTFE in 11.2% and native arteriovenous fistula in 41.5%. Minimum follow-up was one year, with an average of 2.31 years/patient. The mortality risk adjusted for comorbidity was greater among the patients that started with catheterization, HR: 1.86 [1.11-3.05]. This negative effect was observed in 57.30% of those subjected to catheterization at any stage (HR: 1.68 [1.00-2.84] and proved to be time dependent, i.e., the longer catheterization, the greater the risk: HR:7.66 [3.34-17.54] third versus first tertil. The cost directly attributable to catheter use was 563.31 euros/month. All poor prognosis groups showed lower albumin and hemoglobin levels, without differences in efficacy. Conclusion: Tunneled catheter use at any time is associated with an increased risk of death. This effect increases with the duration of catheterization, both circumstances are independent of patient comorbidity at time start of hemodialysisand implies a higher net cost (AU)

Seguimiento prospectivo del acceso vascular en hemodiálisis mediante un equipo multidisciplinar / Prospective monitoring of vascular access in hemodialysis by means of a multidisciplinary team

Introducción: Las guías de expertos recomiendan programas de monitorización del acceso vascular (AV) en hemodiálisis mediante equipos multidisciplinares. Material y métodos: Presentamos la experiencia, de 5 años de seguimiento prospectivo del AV mediante un equipo multidisciplinar. Describimos los indicadores de calidad alcanzados y los factores asociados a supervivencia en AV incidentes. Resultados: Se estudiaron 317 AV, 73% fístulas arteriovenosas autólogas (FAV) y el resto PTFE, en 282 pacientes. Se produjeron 88 trombosis: tasa de trombosis/acceso año de 0,06 para FAV y 0,38 en PTFE. El 66,6% de reparaciones del AV fueron electivas, realizándose cirugía urgente en el 76% de las trombosis. No precisaron catéter el 62,5% de los pacientes. Los ingresos relacionados con las complicaciones de FAV y PTFE fueron el 11,4% del total. El 80% de pacientes valorados previamente en la consulta de prediálisis comenzó hemodiálisis con un AV desarrollado. La supervivencia media de las FAV incidentes fue de 1.575 ± 55 días vs 1.087 ± 102 de los PTFE (p < 0,008). La supervivencia al año, 2 años y 3 años de las FAV fue del 89%, 85% y 83% y en los PTFE de 83, 67 y 51% respectivamente. La regresión de Cox demostró que el tipo de AV es el factor más importante asociado a supervivencia, OR 0,4 [0,2-0,8] para las FAV (p < 0,01). La supervivencia añadida de todos los AV incidentes reparados tras disfunción fue de 1.062 ± 97 días vs 707 ± 132 en los reparados por trombosis; log rank 5,17, p < 0,02. El aumento de riesgo en los AV reparados tras trombosis frente a disfunción fue de 4,2 p <: 0,01. Conclusiones: El seguimiento del AV de forma multidisciplinar ha conseguido: tasa baja de trombosis, elevado número de reparaciones tanto electivas como después de una trombosis, poca necesidad de catéteres y pocos ingresos. Las FAV se asociaron a una mejor supervivencia. Los AV reparados por disfunción vs trombosis presentaron mayor supervivencia

Porpuse: Now a day the expert guide line recommend the monitoring programs of the vascular access (VA) by a multidisciplinary team. Material and method: We present the experience over the last five years, of a prospective VA surveillance by a multidisciplinary team. The quality indicators reached are described as the associated factors for survival of the new VA. Results: Three hundred seventeen VA have been studied, 73% were arteriovenous fistulas (AVF) and the rest were polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) grafts at 282 patients. The main causes of dysfunctions were elevated dynamic venous presion (42,5%) and the decreased blood flow (36.4%) with a 88% of positive predictive value. Over the 5 years there was 88 thrombosis (24 AVF and 64 PTFE grafts), that means a hazard thrombosis global rate of 0,15 access/year, which were distributed in 0.06 for AVF and 0,38 in PTFE grafts. Two hundred and one repair of the VA were done: 66.6% were elective repair after a proper review by the multidisciplinary team and the rest of them were done after the AV thrombosis happened. Urgent rescue surgery were done in 76% of the thrombosis. The 62,5% of the patients do not needed a catheter after vascular access thrombosis. The complication relation with AVF and PTFE were 11,4% of the total patientes hemodialysis hospitalizations. The 65,2% of the VA were new access. The 57% of patients were properly review in the pre-dialysis unit at least once and 80% of them start haemodialysis with a mature access. The average survival (Kaplan Meier) of the new AVF was 1,575 ± 55 days vs 1,087 ± 102 of the PTFE grafts (p < 0.008). The survival after 1, 2 and 3 years for the AVF was 89%, 85% and 83% and for the PTFE graft 3% 67% and 51% respectively. The Cox regression have proved that the type of vascular access is the strongest factor associated to VA survival. The survival added of VA repaired due to dysfunction was 1,062 ± 97 days vs 707 ± 132 due to thrombosis, log rank 5,17 (p < 0,02). The increasing risk of those repaired after a thrombosis vs dysfunction is 4,2 p < 0,01. Conclusions: The monitoring of the vascular access by a multidisciplinary team has reached: low rate of thrombosis, high elective number of repairs of the VA, high urgent rescue surgery after a thrombosis and a few number catheter needed and hospitalizations. The AVF are associated a greater survival that PTFE. The VA repair due to dysfunction vs thrombosis had a greater survival as well

[Prospective monitoring of vascular access in hemodialysis by means of a multidisciplinary team]. / Seguimiento prospectivo del acceso vascular en hemodialisis mediante un equipo multidisciplinar.

PURPOSE: Nowadays, expert guidelines recommend the monitoring programs of the vascular access (VA) by a multidisciplinary team. MATERIAL AND METHOD: We present the experience over the last five years, of a prospective VA surveillance by a multidisciplinary team. The quality indicators reached are described as the associated factors for survival of the new VA. RESULTS: Three hundred seventeen VA have been studied, 73% were arteriovenous fistulas(AVF) and the rest were polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) grafts at 282 patients. The main causes of dysfunctions were elevated dynamic venous pressure (42.5%) and the decreased blood flow (36.4%) with a 88% of positive predictive value. Over the 5 years there was 88 thrombosis (24 AVF and 64 PTFE grafts), that means a hazard thrombosis global rate of 0.15 access/year, which were distributed in 0.06 for AVF and 0.38 in PTFE grafts. Two hundred and one repairs of VA were done: 66.6% were elective repair after a proper review by the multidisciplinary team and the rest of them were done after the AV thrombosis happened. Urgent rescue surgeries were done in 76% of the thrombosis. 62.5% of the patients did not need a catheter after vascular access thrombosis. The complication relation with AVF and PTFE were 11.4% of the total patients hemodialysis hospitalizations. 65.2% of the VA were new access. 57% of patients were properly reviewed in the pre-dialysis unit at least once and 80% of them start haemodialysis with a mature access. The average survival (Kaplan Meier) of the new AVF was 1,575+/-55 days vs 1,087+/-102 of the PTFE grafts (p < 0.008). The survival after 1, 2 and 3 years for the AVF was 89%, 85% and 83% and for the PTFE graft 3% 67% and 51% respectively. The Cox regression has proved that the type of vascular access is the strongest factor associated to VA survival. The survival added of VA repaired due to dysfunction was 1,062 +/- 97 days vs 707 +/- 132 due to thrombosis, log rank 5.17 (p < 0,02). The increasing risk of those repaired after a thrombosis vs dysfunction is 4.2 p < 0,01. CONCLUSIONS: The monitoring of the vascular access by a multidisciplinary team has reached:low rate of thrombosis, high elective number of repairs of the VA, high urgent rescue surgery after a thrombosis and a few number catheter needed and hospitalizations. AVF are associated with greater survival than PTFE. The VA repair due to dysfunction vs thrombosis had a greater survival as well.