Literature DB >> 21441125

Bedside screening for fistula stenosis should be tailored to the site of the arteriovenous anastomosis.

Nicola Tessitore1, Valeria Bedogna, Giovanni Lipari, Edoardo Melilli, William Mantovani, Elda Baggio, Antonio Lupo, Giancarlo Mansueto, Albino Poli.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Given different sites of stenosis and access blood flow rates (Qa), the criteria for diagnosing fistula stenosis might vary according to anastomotic site. To test this, we analyzed the database of a prospective blinded study seeking an optimal bedside screening program for fistula stenosis. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Several methods used during dialysis (physical examination [PE], dynamic and derived static venous pressure [VAPR], dialysis blood pump flow/arterial pressure ratio, and Qa measurement) to diagnose angiographically-proven >50% stenosis were assessed in an unselected population of hemodialysis patients with mature fistulae (43 at the wrist [distal fistulae], 76 at mid-forearm or the elbow [proximal fistulae]).
RESULTS: Prevalence of inflow stenosis was uninfluenced by anastomotic site, whereas outflow stenoses were more prevalent in proximal fistulae. The best test for inflow stenosis was Qa <650 ml/min in distal fistulae and a combination of a positive PE and Qa <900 ml/m in proximal fistulae. In proximal fistulae, PE and VAPR >0.5 were both equally highly diagnostic of outflow stenosis. Tailoring choice of test to site of the anastomosis may also contain the screening-associated workload, by reducing the need to perform PE and measure VAPR, compared with a screening approach regardless of the access location.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that an effective bedside screening program with ≥85% accuracy for fistula stenosis can be tailored to the site of the anastomosis, Qa being the tool of choice for the wrist, and PE alone or combined with Qa and VAPR measurements for more proximally-located accesses.
Copyright © 2011 by the American Society of Nephrology

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21441125      PMCID: PMC3087773          DOI: 10.2215/CJN.06230710

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin J Am Soc Nephrol        ISSN: 1555-9041            Impact factor:   8.237


  17 in total

1.  Treatment of stenosis and thrombosis in haemodialysis fistulas and grafts by interventional radiology.

Authors:  L Turmel-Rodrigues; J Pengloan; S Baudin; D Testou; M Abaza; G Dahdah; A Mouton; D Blanchard
Journal:  Nephrol Dial Transplant       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 5.992

2.  Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound dilution access blood flow measurement in detecting stenosis and predicting thrombosis in native forearm arteriovenous fistulae for hemodialysis.

Authors:  Nicola Tessitore; Valeria Bedogna; Linda Gammaro; Giovanni Lipari; Albino Poli; Elda Baggio; Maria Firpo; Giovanni Morana; Giancarlo Mansueto; Giuseppe Maschio
Journal:  Am J Kidney Dis       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 8.860

3.  Assessing the gain in diagnostic performance when combining two diagnostic tests.

Authors:  Petra Macaskill; Stephen D Walter; Les Irwig; Eduardo L Franco
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2002-09-15       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  Dynamic venous access pressure ratio test for hemodialysis access monitoring.

Authors:  Stanley Frinak; Gerard Zasuwa; Thomas Dunfee; Anatole Besarab; Jerry Yee
Journal:  Am J Kidney Dis       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 8.860

5.  Controversial vascular access surveillance mandate.

Authors:  William D Paulson; Jack Work
Journal:  Semin Dial       Date:  2010 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 3.455

6.  EBPG on Vascular Access.

Authors:  Jan Tordoir; Bernard Canaud; Patrick Haage; Klaus Konner; Ali Basci; Denis Fouque; Jeroen Kooman; Alejandro Martin-Malo; Luciano Pedrini; Francesco Pizzarelli; James Tattersall; Marianne Vennegoor; Christoph Wanner; Piet ter Wee; Raymond Vanholder
Journal:  Nephrol Dial Transplant       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 5.992

7.  Diagnostic methods I: sensitivity, specificity, and other measures of accuracy.

Authors:  Karlijn J van Stralen; Vianda S Stel; Johannes B Reitsma; Friedo W Dekker; Carmine Zoccali; Kitty J Jager
Journal:  Kidney Int       Date:  2009-04-01       Impact factor: 10.612

8.  In search of an optimal bedside screening program for arteriovenous fistula stenosis.

Authors:  Nicola Tessitore; Valeria Bedogna; Edoardo Melilli; Deborah Millardi; Giancarlo Mansueto; Giovanni Lipari; William Mantovani; Elda Baggio; Albino Poli; Antonio Lupo
Journal:  Clin J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2011-03-31       Impact factor: 8.237

9.  Dysfunctional autogenous hemodialysis fistulas: outcomes after angioplasty--are there clinical predictors of patency?

Authors:  Dheeraj K Rajan; Sarah Bunston; Sanjay Misra; Ruxandra Pinto; Charmaine E Lok
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Prevalence and treatment of cephalic arch stenosis in dysfunctional autogenous hemodialysis fistulas.

Authors:  Dheeraj K Rajan; Timothy W I Clark; Nikunj K Patel; S William Stavropoulos; Martin E Simons
Journal:  J Vasc Interv Radiol       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 3.464

View more
  1 in total

1.  Prediction of vascular access stenosis: Blood temperature monitoring with the Twister versus static intra-access pressure ratio.

Authors:  Yoo Jin Choi; Young-Ki Lee; Hayne Cho Park; Eun Yi Kim; Ajin Cho; Chaehoon Han; Sun Ryoung Choi; Hanmyun Kim; Eun-Jung Kim; Jong-Woo Yoon; Jung-Woo Noh
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-10-29       Impact factor: 3.240

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.