Tushar J. Vachharajani

Optimal Hemodialysis Vascular Access in the Elderly Patient

The optimal vascular access for elderly patients remains a challenge due to the difficulty balancing the benefits and risks in a population with increased comorbidity and decreased survival. Age is commonly associated with failure to mature in fistula and decreased rates of primary and secondary patency in both fistula and grafts. In the elderly, at 1 and 2 years, primary patency rates range from 43% to 74% and from 29% to 67%, respectively. Secondary patency rates at 1 and 2 years range from 56% to 82% and 44% to 67%, respectively. Cumulative fistula survival is no better than grafts survival when primary failures are included. Several observational studies consistently demonstrate a lower adjusted mortality among those using a fistula compared with a catheter; however, catheter use in the elderly is increasing in most countries with the exception of Japan. Both guidelines and quality initiatives do not acknowledge the trade‐offs involved in managing the elderly patients with multiple chronic conditions and limited life expectancy or the value that patients place on achieving these outcomes. The framework for choice of vascular access presented in this article considers: (1) likelihood of disease progression before death, (2) patient life expectancy, (3) risks and benefits by vascular access type, and (4) patient preference. Future studies evaluating the timing and type of vascular access with careful assessments of complications, functionality, cost benefit, and patients’ preference will provide relevant information to individualize and optimize care to improve morbidity, mortality, and quality of life in the elderly patient.

Diagnosis of Arteriovenous Fistula Dysfunction

Arteriovenous fistula (AVF) dysfunction remains a major contributor to the morbidity and mortality of hemodialysis patients. The failure of a newly created AVF to mature and development of stenosis in an established AVF are two common clinical predicaments. The goal is to identify a dysfunctional AVF early enough to intervene in a timely manner to either assist with the maturation process or to prevent thrombosis. The currently available tools in our armamentarium include clinical evaluation, physical examination of the AVF, and surveillance tests. Physical examination has been recognized as a simple and cost‐effective tool, but is often not implemented either because of lack of training or time constraints. Surveillance tests include measurement of access flow or pressure as a surrogate marker of AVF dysfunction. Surveillance tests often require expensive equipment, additional personnel, and are controversial. Currently, there are guidelines and recommendations to include all of these measures while evaluating an AVF. Implementing judicious use of these tools in clinical practice can facilitate early diagnosis for timely intervention in the appropriate population. Furthermore, this strategy may avoid unnecessary interventions and assist with healthcare cost containment.

Elderly patients with CKD—dilemmas in dialysis therapy and vascular access

The population of elderly patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) is growing rapidly worldwide. The high prevalence of comorbidities, limited life expectancy and complex quality of life issues associated with this population pose substantial challenges for clinicians in terms of clinical decision-making and providing optimal care. The first dilemma encountered in the management of an elderly patient with ESRD is deciding whether to initiate renal replacement therapy and, if so, selecting the most-suitable dialysis modality. Planning vascular access for haemodialysis is associated with additional challenges. Several clinical practice guidelines recommend an arteriovenous fistula, rather than a central venous catheter or arteriovenous graft, as the preferred access for maintenance haemodialysis therapy. However, whether this recommendation is applicable to elderly patients with ESRD and a limited life expectancy is unclear. Selection and planning of the most appropriate vascular access for an elderly patient with ESRD requires careful consideration of several factors and ultimately should lead to an improvement in the patients quality of life.

Education in vascular access.

The successful creation and use of an arteriovenous vascular access (VA) requires a coordinated, educated multidisciplinary team to ensure an optimal VA for each patient. Patient education programs on VA are associated with increased arteriovenous VA use at dialysis initiation. Education should be tailored to patient goals and preferences with the understanding that experiential education from patient to patient is far more influential than that provided by the healthcare professional. VA education for the nephrologist should focus on addressing the systematic and patient‐level barriers in achieving a functional VA, with specific components relating to VA creation, maturation, and cannulation that consider patient goals and preferences. A deficit in nursing skills in the area of assessment and cannulation can have devastating consequences for hemodialysis patients. Delivery of an integrated education program increases nurses’ knowledge of VA and development of simulation programs or constructs to assist in cannulation of the VA will greatly facilitate the much needed skill transfer. Adequate VA surgical training and experience are critical to the creation and outcomes of VA. Simulations can benefit nephrologists, dialysis nurses surgeons, and interventionalists though aiding in surgical creation, understanding of the physiology and anatomy of a dysfunctional VA, and practicing cannulation techniques. All future educational initiatives must emphasize the importance of multidisciplinary care to attain successful VA outcomes.

Vascular Access Guidelines: Summary, Rationale, and Controversies

Dialysis vascular access management in the United States changed significantly after National Kidney Foundation-Kidney Disease Outcome Quality Initiative (NKF-KDOQI) clinical practice guidelines were first published in 1997. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Service adopted these guidelines and in collaboration with the End-Stage Renal Disease Networks established the Fistula First Breakthrough Initiative (FFBI) in 2003 to improve the rate of arteriovenous fistula use over arteriovenous graft and central venous catheter in the dialysis population. The implementation of guidelines and FFBI has led to a significant increase in the arteriovenous fistula use in the prevalent dialysis population. The guidelines are criticized for being opinion based and often impractical. Over the past 2 decades, the patient population undergoing dialysis has become older with complex comorbidities and challenges for creating an ideal vascular access. Advancing knowledge about access pathophysiology, improved treatment options, and improved process of care with team approach model point toward diminishing relevance of few of the existing guidelines. Moreover, several guidelines remain controversial and may be leading to clinical decisions that may be unfavorable to the patients. The review discusses the historical aspect of vascular access care in the United States and evolution of current practice standards and controversies surrounding few of these guidelines in the current time.

Lower Extremity Permanent Dialysis Vascular Access

Hemodialysis remains the most commonly used RRT option around the world. Technological advances, superior access to care, and better quality of care have led to overall improvement in survival of patients on long-term hemodialysis. Maintaining a functioning upper extremity vascular access for a prolonged duration continues to remain a challenge for dialysis providers. Frequently encountered difficulties in clinical practice include (1) a high incidence of central venous catheter-related central vein stenosis and (2) limited options for creating a functioning upper extremity permanent arteriovenous access. Lack of surgical skills, fear of complications, and limited involvement of the treating nephrologists in the decision-making process are some of the reasons why lower extremity permanent dialysis access remains an infrequently used option. Similar to upper extremity vascular access options, lower extremity arteriovenous fistula remains a preferred access over arteriovenous synthetic graft. The use of femoral tunneled catheter as a long-term access should be avoided as far as possible, especially with the availability of newer graft-catheter hybrid devices. Our review provides a summary of clinical evidence published in surgical, radiology, and nephrology literature highlighting the pros and cons of different types of lower extremity permanent dialysis access.

Atypical Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome: A Meta-Analysis of Case Reports Confirms the Prevalence of Genetic Mutations and the Shift of Treatment Regimens: Meta-Analysis of Atypical HUS Case Reports

Atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome (aHUS) is a rare life‐threatening thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA) affecting multiple organ systems. Recently, aHUS has been shown to be associated with uncontrolled complement activation due to mutations in the alternative pathway of complement components paving the way for targeted drug therapy. By meta‐analysis of case reports, we discuss the impact of new treatment strategies on the resolution time of aHUS symptoms and mortality, and the distribution of genetic mutations. A PubMed/Medline search was conducted for “atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome” case reports published between November 2005 and November 2015. R Version 3.2.2 was used to calculate descriptive statistics and perform univariate analyses. Wilcoxon rank‐sum test was used to compare time to symptoms resolution, creatinine and platelet count normalization across the treatment and mutation carrier groups. A total of 259 aHUS patients were reported in 176 articles between 2005 and 2015. In the last 5‐year period compared to the precedent, there was an increase in the number of aHUS cases reported (180 vs. 79 cases) and the use of eculizumab also increased (6.3% to 46.1%, P < 0.000), although plasma exchange usage did not change (P = 0.281). CFH antibodies were present in a significantly higher number of patients treated with plasma exchange therapy (19.1%, P = 0.000) while none of the non‐plasma exchange therapy group had CFH antibodies. Most common mutation was CFH (50%, 69/139) followed by CFHR1 (35%, 30/85), MCP (22.8%, 23/101) and CFI (16.6%, 17/102). Time to symptoms resolution and serum creatinine or platelet count normalization were not significantly different between eculizumab and non‐eculizumab group (P = 0.166, P = 0.361, P = 0.834), and between plasma exchange and non‐plasma exchange group (P = 0.150, P = 0.135, P = 0.784). However, both eculizumab and plasma exchange groups had early platelet recovery (22 vs. 30 days and 25.5 vs. 32.5 days), faster creatinine normalization (27 vs. 30.5 days and 27 vs. 37 days) and interestingly, a longer period for symptoms resolution (45.5 vs. 21 days and 30 vs. 18.5 days) compared to non‐eculizumab and non‐plasma exchange groups. Mortality rate decreased with the use of eculizumab significantly (P = 0.045) compared to non‐eculizumab group and there was no change in mortality rate with the use of plasma exchange therapy (P = 0.760) compared to non‐plasma exchange group. Plasma exchange continues to be the initial treatment of choice for aHUS. Although significant reduction in the mortality rate was noted with the use of eculizumab, there were no differences in time to resolution of symptoms or serum creatinine or platelet normalization with the use of either eculizumab or plasma therapy. Atypical HUS is acute and life‐threatening, so plasma exchange may be initiated before the confirmed diagnosis and in patients positive for CFH antibodies. Eculizumab therapy should be considered once aHUS is confirmed by genetic testing.

Antithrombotic therapy in end-stage renal disease

The delicate balance of risk vs. benefit of using antiplatelet and antithrombotic agents in the general population is well established. The decision to use these agents in the end stage renal disease (ESRD) population remains complex and difficult. The concomitant association of a prothombotic state with high risk of bleeding in the ESRD population requires individualization and careful clinical judgment before implementing such therapy. There remains a paucity of clinical trials and lack of substantial evidence in literature for safe and effective use of antithrombotic drugs in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease. The current review summarizes the pros and cons of using antiplatelet and antithrombotic agents in primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular events, evaluate the risks with routine use of anticoagulation for cerebrovascular stroke prevention with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and role of newer oral anticoagulants as alternate agents in the dialysis population.

Thrombocytopenia in ESRD Patients: Epidemiology, Mechanisms and Interventional Nephrology Perspective

A well‐functioning vascular access is essential for provision of life‐sustaining dialysis treatment in patients with end‐stage renal disease. Arteriovenous accesses are preferred form of vascular access. Although significant advances have been made in the field of dialysis access, arteriovenous access dysfunction remains the single most important cause of morbidity in ESRD patients. While thrombosis and stenosis of AV access are more frequently seen, hemorrhage from AV access can be life threatening with or without risk of permanent access loss. Aside from anticoagulation for comorbidities, qualitative and/or quantitative platelet abnormalities are often the predisposing factors. We describe an ESRD patient who developed new onset but severe thrombocytopenia due to metastatic small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma of lung. Given her persistent thrombocytopenia and presence of prolonged bleeding from the cannulation sites, a right internal jugular tunneled dialysis catheter was placed for continuation of maintenance dialysis. This review discusses the definition of thrombocytopenia, mechanisms of thrombocytopenia in patients with ESRD and with a special focus on implications of thrombocytopenia on dialysis access interventions. The review underscores the need for consensus with regard to cannulating AV access as well as guidelines specific to dialysis access‐related endovascular intervention in the setting of thrombocytopenia and other coagulation abnormalities.

Blood pressure recordings during hemodialysis access interventions: implications for acute management.

A retrospective study evaluating the pattern of blood pressure and its related complications before, during, and after percutaneous hemodialysis interventions was performed in patients presenting with asymptomatic hypertension. Hemodialysis patients undergoing percutaneous interventions including tunneled hemodialysis catheter insertion, percutaneous balloon angioplasty and thrombectomy procedure, and stage II hypertension (systolic blood pressure ≥160 mmHg) were included in this analysis. Blood pressure medications were not used while midazolam and fentanyl were routinely administered. Patients were followed for up to 4 weeks to monitor any complications. The mean blood pressure before, during, and after the procedures were 185 ± 18/96 ± 14, 172 ± 22/92 ± 15, and 153 ± 25/87 ± 14, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference between the blood pressure readings before and after the procedure (before = 185 ± 18/96 ± 14, after = 153 ± 25/87 ± 14; p = 0.001). None of the patients had a stroke, myocardial infarction, or acute pulmonary edema before, during, or after the procedure or during the 4‐week follow‐up period. A significant reduction in blood pressure was observed after the procedure without the administration of any antihypertensive medication. These results suggest that the reduction in blood pressure observed after percutaneous dialysis access interventions (particularly in the presence of midazolam and fentanyl) may make it unnecessary to treat asymptomatic hypertension prior to these procedures.