PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the utility of routine duplex flow study 4 to 6 weeks after primary AVF creation and to compare physical exam against a duplex flow study in predicting fistula maturation. A surveillance algorithm was established to evaluate the naïve fistula after primary creation. METHODS: This was a single institution retrospective review of 155 veterans with primary autogenous AVF creation from 2016 to 2018. All patients received a duplex flow study evaluation after primary creation. A comparison was made between physical exam (PE) and flow study at 4 to 6 weeks post creation. Sensitivities and specificities of physical exam and duplex flow study were compared head-to-head in predicting unassisted fistula maturation. A mature AVF was defined as a fistula that could be repetitively cannulated and provided adequate flow for dialysis. Failure of maturation was defined as an AVF that was never usable for dialysis. An abnormal duplex included thrombosis, stenosis (> 50% on gray scale imaging), inadequate vein diameter (< 4 mm), inadequate vein length or superficialization, or poor flow (< 500 ml/min). Bivariate comparisons were conducted using Pearson's χ², Fishers exact test, and Wilcoxon test depending on distribution. Significance was defined as P < 0.05. RESULTS: There were 53 patients with radiocephalic (RC) fistulas, 41 patients with brachiocephalic (BC) fistulas, and 6 patients with brachiobasilic (BB) fistulas. Of patients with a confirmed abnormal duplex ultrasound, 53% had an abnormal PE (sensitivity 53%; PPV 96.3%, P < 0.001). Of the patients with a confirmed normal duplex, 98% had a normal PE (specificity 98%; NPV 68.5%, P < 0.001). An abnormal duplex flow study had a 67% sensitivity for predicting AVF failure or need for reintervention while an abnormal physical examination had a 42% sensitivity in predicting AVF failure or need for reintervention (P < 0.001). In total, 48 fistulas needed reintervention, however only 20 (42%) were associated with an abnormal physical examination. Of those 48 reinterventions, 20 (42%) fistulas exhibited primary assisted maturation (P < 0.001). On duplex flow study alone, 32 patients had hemodynamically significant lesions necessitating reintervention, which went on to afford 9 (28%) primary assisted mature fistulas (P = 0.69). CONCLUSION: Abnormal duplex flow studies have a better sensitivity for detecting AVF failure or the need for reintervention compared to physical exam alone. An abnormal duplex correlates more with needing a reintervention to achieve maturation than physical exam. Therefore, we advocate routine use of a postoperative duplex flow study to identify potentially correctable issues and optimize fistula maturation.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the utility of routine duplex flow study 4 to 6 weeks after primary AVF creation and to compare physical exam against a duplex flow study in predicting fistula maturation. A surveillance algorithm was established to evaluate the naïve fistula after primary creation. METHODS: This was a single institution retrospective review of 155 veterans with primary autogenous AVF creation from 2016 to 2018. All patients received a duplex flow study evaluation after primary creation. A comparison was made between physical exam (PE) and flow study at 4 to 6 weeks post creation. Sensitivities and specificities of physical exam and duplex flow study were compared head-to-head in predicting unassisted fistula maturation. A mature AVF was defined as a fistula that could be repetitively cannulated and provided adequate flow for dialysis. Failure of maturation was defined as an AVF that was never usable for dialysis. An abnormal duplex included thrombosis, stenosis (> 50% on gray scale imaging), inadequate vein diameter (< 4 mm), inadequate vein length or superficialization, or poor flow (< 500 ml/min). Bivariate comparisons were conducted using Pearson's χ², Fishers exact test, and Wilcoxon test depending on distribution. Significance was defined as P < 0.05. RESULTS: There were 53 patients with radiocephalic (RC) fistulas, 41 patients with brachiocephalic (BC) fistulas, and 6 patients with brachiobasilic (BB) fistulas. Of patients with a confirmed abnormal duplex ultrasound, 53% had an abnormal PE (sensitivity 53%; PPV 96.3%, P < 0.001). Of the patients with a confirmed normal duplex, 98% had a normal PE (specificity 98%; NPV 68.5%, P < 0.001). An abnormal duplex flow study had a 67% sensitivity for predicting AVF failure or need for reintervention while an abnormal physical examination had a 42% sensitivity in predicting AVF failure or need for reintervention (P < 0.001). In total, 48 fistulas needed reintervention, however only 20 (42%) were associated with an abnormal physical examination. Of those 48 reinterventions, 20 (42%) fistulas exhibited primary assisted maturation (P < 0.001). On duplex flow study alone, 32 patients had hemodynamically significant lesions necessitating reintervention, which went on to afford 9 (28%) primary assisted mature fistulas (P = 0.69). CONCLUSION: Abnormal duplex flow studies have a better sensitivity for detecting AVF failure or the need for reintervention compared to physical exam alone. An abnormal duplex correlates more with needing a reintervention to achieve maturation than physical exam. Therefore, we advocate routine use of a postoperative duplex flow study to identify potentially correctable issues and optimize fistula maturation.