Journal of Nephrology

, Volume 29, Issue 2, pp 175–184 | Cite as

The vascular access in the elderly: a position statement of the Vascular Access Working Group of the Italian Society of Nephrology

  • Carlo Lomonte
  • Giacomo Forneris
  • Maurizio Gallieni
  • Luigi Tazza
  • Mario Meola
  • Massimo Lodi
  • Massimo Senatore
  • Walter Morale
  • Monica Spina
  • Marcello Napoli
  • Decenzio Bonucchi
  • Franco Galli
Open Access
Review

Abstract

The incident hemodialysis (HD) population is aging, and the elderly group is the one with the most rapid increase. In this context it is important to define the factors associated with outcomes in elderly patients. The high prevalence of comorbidities, particularly diabetes mellitus, peripheral vascular disease and congestive heart failure, usually make vascular access (VA) creation more difficult. Furthermore, many of these patients may have an insufficient vasculature for fistula maturation. Finally, many fistulas may never be used due to the competing risk of death before dialysis initiation. In these cases, an arteriovenous graft and in some cases a central venous catheter become a valid alternative form of VA. Nephrologists need to know what is the most appropriate VA option in these patients. Age should not be a limiting factor when determining candidacy for arteriovenous fistula creation. The aim of this position statement, prepared by experts of the Vascular Access Working Group of the Italian Society of Nephrology, is to critically review the current evidence on VA in elderly HD patients. To this end, relevant clinical studies and recent guidelines on VA are reviewed and commented. The main advantages and potential drawbacks of the different VA modalities in the elderly patients are discussed.

Keywords

Vascular access Elderly Arteriovenous fistula Arteriovenous graft Central venous catheter 

Introduction

People aged over 65 years are increasing worldwide, and it is predicted that over the next few decades the number of people over 65 years will increase by a factor of three [1]. It is estimated that almost half of 65–74 year-olds have five or more chronic health conditions, and this may reach 70 % once individuals are aged over 85 years [1]. As nephrologists, we are facing increasing numbers of elderly patients affected by chronic kidney disease (CKD) and a high prevalence of comorbidities such as diabetes mellitus, peripheral vascular disease, hypertension and congestive heart failure. Between 1982 and 2000, the greatest growth in incident hemodialysis (HD) patients was in those older than 65 years [2]. The 2012 Annual Report of the European Renal Association–European Dialysis and Transplant Association (ERA–EDTA) registry shows that patients aged 65–74 years and >75 years represent, respectively, 22 and 20 % of the total prevalent renal replacement therapy population [3]. The clinical practical guidelines for the evaluation and management of CKD recently published by the Kidney Disease Initiative Global Outcomes (KDIGO) provide only minimal recommendations targeted to the elderly [4]; in addition, renal replacement therapy in elderly patients raises several critical questions concerning life expectancy, quality of life, and other moral, ethical, financial, social, and legal issues [5].

Arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs) are recommended by many national clinical guidelines as the vascular access (VA) of choice in HD patients; however, there is concern about whether general guidelines also apply to the elderly population [6], and suggestions have been made on how to modify the recommendations for VA choice in these patients [7]. In fact, VA planning in the elderly is different from that in younger patients, and the Fistula First Initiative may not be the preferred approach for older patients because of their reduced life expectancy and conflicting results after surgery [8]. Although AVF may be superior to arteriovenous graft (AVG) and central venous catheter (CVC) in all age groups, including the elderly, many elderly patients have a heavy burden of comorbidities and insufficient vasculature for fistula maturation, resulting in a reduced rate of AVF patency [9]. Patients over 65 years have a fistula failure rate double that of younger patients [10]; furthermore, many fistulas will never be used due to the competing risk of death before dialysis initiation in this group [11]. Unsuccessful fistula placement results in a high incidence of CVC use at start of HD treatment, with significant risks and complications such as bacteremia and thrombosis [12]. However, the rate of bloodstream infections in older patients may be significantly less than in younger patients [13]. Data on AVG in the elderly are conflicting. Some studies advocate the use of AVF rather than AVG and provide evidence that in elderly patients autogenous VA may have a patency rate similar to that of younger patients [14]. In contrast, other data support the opposite strategy of ‘AVG first’ in octogenarians and show a higher risk of death before the start of dialysis with AVF than with AVG [15]. Patient survival is strongly influenced by important factors, such as nutritional status, pre-dialysis nephrology care, cardiovascular disease, and most importantly the VA. Nephrologists should strive for the most appropriate VA if the hope to prolong an enjoyable life span exists. The aim of this position statement is to critically review the current evidence on HD VA in elderly patients. Experts of the Vascular Access Working Group of the Italian Society of Nephrology prepared this position statement in order to discuss the main advantages and potential drawbacks of the different VA modalities in elderly patients.

Timely VA placement in the elderly

A formalized predialysis pathway and timely placement of VA are considered good clinical practice in VA care. Timely preparation and education for dialysis are crucial as they are associated with a number of benefits, including elective dialysis start with access in place, reduction in hospitalizations, higher prevalence of patients choosing a home-based dialysis modality and, in those starting HD, a reduced prevalence of CVC [16]. Older patients lose renal function at slower rates than younger ones, have a lower rate of events of progression to end-stage renal disease (ESRD), and have shorter survival [5]. Elderly patients may be more likely to die before benefiting from an AVF and to experience primary fistula failure with a high incidence of CVC use at HD initiation, which is associated with increased morbidity and mortality [17, 18]. A study has shown that placing an AVF >9 months before starting HD did not improve the success rate but, on the contrary, was associated with an increased number of interventional procedures: from 0.64 procedures/patient for AVFs created 6–9 months predialysis to 0.72 procedures/patient for AVFs created >12 months in advance; hence, placing an AVF >6–9 months predialysis in the elderly is not associated with a better success rate [19]. Despite this, there is a trend to construct AVFs earlier before HD initiation, although it is reported that the time between the referral to a nephrologist and the start of dialysis is 3.5 weeks for individuals >75 years vs. 20.5 weeks for those <75 years [16]. Delaying AVF placement may in fact be better, in that some authors suggest that elderly patients with CKD should be referred later to reduce the risk of creating an AVF that will never be used [20]. In this regard, the AVG becomes a valid alternative form of VA if no suitable anatomy for AVF creation and slow renal progression are present [21]; in such cases, the use of early stick graft might be suitable, because of the high risk of non-maturing autologous AVF [22], even though the mortality benefit of AVG over CVC may not apply in the oldest-old (>89 years) age-group [8]. Life expectancy as well as quality of life are important aspects for most patients considering dialysis, and recent data suggest that if dialysis is adequately prepared for in advance it is safe to delay starting HD until the development of signs and symptoms of uremia [23].

In the context of an intent-to-defer HD treatment strategy, a tunneled CVC could be the best choice, because no maturation time is required. Some authors have supported a generalized use of CVC in older patients [24] and, due to the lower risk of catheter-related bloodstream infections in elderly patients, tunneled CVC may represent a suitable dialysis access option in the setting of non-maturing AVF or poorly functioning synthetic grafts [13]. However, strict protocols for nursing care and proper catheter management need to be implemented [25]. Citrate solution has been suggested as an effective and safe catheter lock in hemodialysis [26]. A systematic review and meta-analysis of 13 randomized controlled trials has shown that an antimicrobial-containing citrate lock is better than a heparin lock in the prevention of catheter-related infection. Citrate locks of low (1.04–4 %) to moderate concentration (4.6–7 %), rather than high concentration, were superior to heparin locks in preventing catheter-related bloodstream infection [27]. In elderly patients, 4 % sodium citrate is a suitable choice of lock solution to maintain patency of tunneled CVC and decrease bleeding episodes.

VA in elderly patients: recent findings

There is currently no general consensus as to the best dialysis VA for elderly patients with ESRD, and debate continues. The elderly have specific health care requirements, as they are at increased risk of comorbidities that may result in frailty and reduced physical and cognitive function; furthermore, they often face complex psychosocial, financial, and transportation issues [28]. The creation and use of a VA in elderly patients requires the complex integration of patient, biological and surgical factors because the VA type might be a key factor influencing their survival [2, 9, 22, 29]. Data from the ERA-EDTA registry show that the likelihood of being treated with an AVF was 20, 24 and 37 % lower in the three oldest patient age-groups (60–69, 70–79 and >80 years) when compared to patients aged 22–44 years [30]. The advantages and disadvantages of each form of access may vary depending on the timing of the access placement relative to dialysis initiation [12]. A summary of the recommendations and suggestions from recently published studies on VA in the elderly are reported in Table 1. Many studies clearly demonstrate a high rate of technical feasibility of fistula construction in the elderly [8, 31, 32, 33] and age alone should not disqualify patients older than 80 years from access surgery [14, 34]. Nevertheless, it has been shown that in patients aged 67 years or older, only 50.7 % of those with AVF placement initiated dialysis using the AVF, and 43.4 % started with a CVC; in contrast, among patients that received a graft as first access only 25.4 % started dialysis with a CVC; in other words, patients who receive a graft are less likely to require a catheter at first HD treatment compared to those who receive a fistula [15]. In a retrospective cohort study addressing the early failure of dialysis access in the elderly, it has been shown that AVF is associated with a lower mortality rate than AVG in the first 12 months after creation. However, the incidence of repeat AVF/AVG creation and CVC placement is substantially higher in the first 12 months after AVF creation compared to AVG [35]. Although grafts require more procedures to maintain patency, fistulas require more procedures to establish patency, with the result that overall patency may not differ substantially between the two forms of permanent access [36]. Due to the high primary failure rate and need for multiple procedures to maintain patency with a poor patient quality of life, the eligibility in elderly patients should be carefully determined [37, 38]. However, in skilled hands the endovascular treatment of AVF complications appears to be a valuable approach even in nonagenarians in view of its low invasiveness, low complication rate, and relatively good long-term patency rate [39]. Furthermore, a recent analysis from USRDS data between 2005 and 2007 on the apparent survival advantage of AVFs, after adjustment for health status, suggests that AVF should still be the VA of choice for elderly individuals beginning HD, until more definitive findings eliminating selection bias become available [40]. The benefits of an AVF over AVG only become evident when the use or expected use of the AVF is >18 months, suggesting that patients with a life expectancy of less than 18 months do not experience the benefit of the longer patency expected from AVF placement [41]. A recent decision analysis on the VA choice in incident HD patients provided evidence that the AVF attempt strategy is superior to AVG and CVC with regard to mortality and cost for the majority of patient characteristic combinations; on the contrary, in women with diabetes and elderly men with diabetes the outcomes are similar, regardless of access type. The advantages of an AVF attempt strategy significantly diminish among older patients, in particular in women with diabetes [42]. In fact, in a survey of European experts exploring barriers to the ‘fistula first’ concept, less than a third of the respondents believed that the majority of nephrologists in their country would consider AVF creation in a 75-year-old woman with comorbidities [43]. The VA-related outcomes may be optimized by considering individual patient characteristics, and a patient-based approach is recommended [44].
Table 1

Summary of the recommendations and suggestions from studies on vascular access in the elderly

Author, Journal, Year of publication, and Country

Study design

Patient characteristics

Intervention comparator

Outcomes

Results

Notes

Azevedo, Sem Dial, 2015, France

Retrospective on prospectively collected data

Nonagenarians = 38 patients, mean age 93.9 years

Only AVF, mostly radio-cephalic (n = 30)

PPR and SPR after endovascular treatment of upper limb AVF (stenosis or thrombosis)

PPR = 60 and 43 % at 1 and 2 years; SPR = 95 and 92 % at 1 and 2 years

Endovascular treatment is a valuable approach in nonagenarian patients

Bonforte, JVA, 2000, Italy

Retrospective

198 patients >65 years

Toledo-Pereira, snuff-box, wrist AVF

Primary survival

Best outcome from proximal radial AVF (Toledo-Pereira) in spite of comorbidities

Toledo-Pereira AVF suggested as first access option in the elderly

Borzumati, JVA, 2013, Italy

Retrospective

78 patients mean age 82.5 years

 

Survival and complication rate for distal, mid arm, proximal AVF

Overall survival 76 and 71 % at 12 and 24 months for AVF

Choice of distal AVF if possible in the elderly

AVF is gold standard in both elderly and younger patients

Chang, Sem Dial, 2011, USA

Retrospective USRDS Wave II

764 patients >65 years

AVF vs. AVG diabetics vs. non diabetics

Mortality and intervention referral

No mortality differences AVF vs. AVG, for intervention referral for diabetics and non diabetics

Potential benefits derived from AVF compared to AVG and CVC may not apply universally

Cloudeanos, Ann Vasc Surg, 2015, USA

Retrospective

31 patients, mean age 82 years

32 AVF

PPR, SPR at 1 and 2 years

PPR = 51 and 38 % at 1 and 2 years

SPR = 75 % at 1 and 2 years

High level of reintervention to maintain patency, high use of CVC

Poor survival

Doubts on advantages of AVF in the elderly

De Leur, Vasc Endovsc Surg, 2013, Netherlands

Retrospective

107 AVF in 90 patients, aged 75 years or older

65 RCF vs. 42 BCF

PPR and SPR, QOL

PPR for RCF at 1 year = 31 %, at 2 years = 22 %

SPR for RCF at 1 = 58 %, at 2 years = 50 %

PPR for BCF at 1 and 2 years = 52 and 41 %

SPR for BCF at 1 and 2 years = 70 and 57 %

Significant benefit in creating proximal access

QOL high despite a high mortality rate

DeSilva, JASN, 2013, USA

Prospective cohort study

115,425 Incident HD patients

Age: 76.9 ± 6.4 years

Gender: 52.9 % male

Fistula graft catheter

Mortality

HR: 1.77

CVC vs. AVF (p < 0.001)

HR: 1.05 Graft vs. Fistula (p = 0.06)

Fistula was not superior to graft

Hicks, J Vasc Surg, 2015, USA

Retrospective

507791 patients on USRDS 2006–2010

Age group

Mortality

AVF is superior to AVG and CVC regardless of the patient’s age, including in octogenarians

Mortality benefit of AVG over CVC may not apply in older (>89 years) age-groups

Hod, JASN, 2014, USA

Retrospective

17511 patients mean age 76.1 years at the initiation of HD

AVF success group (success) vs. AVG + CVC group (failure)

AVF success initiation of HD using the AVF initially placed, regardless of the functionality and durability

Placing an AVF 6–9 months predialysis in the elderly may not be associated to a better AVF success rate

Success rate AVF use increased as time between creation and HD initiation increased (but not >9 months)

Lazarides, J Vasc Surg, 2007, Greece

Meta analysis

Ten studies: 1171 non elderly and 670 elderly

Only five studies with PPR and SPR

Elderly >65 years

Patency rate distal vs. proximal AVF or graft

Distal AV: elderly vs. non elderly

Distal access in elderly vs. proximal or graft

More risk of failure in distal access in elderly

Significant benefit in creating proximal access

A more liberal use of proximal access types may be justified

Murea, CJASN, 2014, USA

Retrospective 2005–2007

464 patients with tCVC:374 non elderly (18–74 years) and 90 elderly (≥75 years)

Risk of CVC infection in age group

Rate of catheter-related bloodstream infection (tCVC)

Hazard ratio = 0.33 for catheter-related bloodstream infection in the elderly

Lower risk of catheter-related bloodstream infection in elderly than younger patients

Nadeau-Fredette, Hemodial Int, 2013, Canadian

Retrospective 2005–2008

55 patients aged >80 years vs. 57 patients 50–60 years

AVF and AVG

Primary Failure (PF)

Primary and secondary patency

PF older 40 % vs. 17 % younger patients. PPR similar. Secondary patency shorter in elderly patients (p = 0.005)

Need of a careful selection and evaluation in elderly prior to referral

Patient-based approach recommended

Olsha, J. Vasc Surg, 2015, Israel

Retrospective study 2005–2009

146 access in 134 incident and prevalent HD patients

Age: 85 ± 2.9 years

Gender: 66 % male

128 AVF

18 AVG

Forearm, upper arm AVF, AVG

Patency rate, non-maturation rate

PPR 39, 33, and 23 % at 12, 24, and 36 months

SPR 92, 83, and 77 % at 12, 24, and 36 months

No difference between the different types of access.

Age alone should not disqualify patients older than 80 years from access surgery

Swindlehurst, J. Vasc Surg, 2011, UK

Retrospective on prospectively collected data (6 years) first AV attempt

246 patients >65 years (Group A)

89 patients <65 years

(Group B)

AVF and AVG

PP, APP, SP, ACPR, death with functioning conduit, mean conduit survival, failure to mature

Patency rates for different types of conduits were similar between the two groups. Failure to mature >elderly AVG higher cumulative patency in group A

AVF in elderly possible with high patency rate, short hospital stay and low revision rate

Vachharajani, CJASN, 2011, USA

Retrospective

37 Incident HD patients

Age: 83.4 ± 3.4 years

Gender: 64 % male

Facility HD

Home HD

Day HD before death

Facility vs home

52 ± 14 vs. 386 ± 90 days (p < 0.05).

Functional status and life expectancy should be assessed

Weale, J. Vasc Surg, 2008, UK

Retrospective

658 patients

Median age 68.5 years

RCAVF

BCAVF in age groups: <65, 66–79, >80 years

Usability, primary, secondary patency

Age did not affect usability, primary or secondary patency of either RCAVFs or BCAVFs

High failure rate

Disagreement with Lazarides study

Weyde, Blood Purif, 2006, Poland

Retrospectve 1998–2004

131 consecutive HD patients

Age 79.1 ± 3.6 years

Gender: 50 % male

Only AVF considered (92 % forearm)

Successful surgery

Primary and secondary AVF patency

Patient survival

Successful AVF: 107/131 patients (82 %)

PPR: 70 % at 6 months, 59 % at 12 months

SPR: 92 % at 6 months, 84 % at 12 months

Patient survival: 94 % at 6 months, 88 % at 12 months, 66 % at 3 years, 45 % at 5 years

Possible selection bias. Good patients and AVF survival

Zhang, Hemodial Int, 2014, Canada

Retrospective registry

39.721 incident patients

27 % 65–74 years, 26 % 75–85 years, 5 % >85 years

AV access (AVF and graft) Catheters

Mortality by vascular access and age category

Lower adjusted mortality compared with catheter use in each age category

Understand patient preference, complications, and resource use

AVF arteriovenous fistula, AVG arteriovenous graft, CVC central venous catheter, PPR primary patency rate, SPR secondary patency rate, RCF radiocephalic fistula, BCF brachiocephalic fistula, QOL quality of life, PP primary patency, APP assisted primary patency, SP secondary patency, ACPR assisted cumulative patency rate, PF primary failure

Surgical strategy in elderly patients

Vessel mapping has been highly encouraged and current international guidelines support the routine use of color-Doppler Ultrasound (CD-US) before AVF surgery [26, 45] and, especially in the elderly, US examination can help to select the optimal location for the AV anastomosis. The available evidence suggests that the pre-operative clinical examination should always be supplemented with routine CD-US mapping before AVF creation. This policy avoids negative surgical explorations and significantly reduces the immediate AVF failure rate [46]. Venography and central vein evaluation should always be performed in patients known to have a previous catheter or pacemaker [44]. Several authors have highlighted the problem of early failure, which may span from 20 to 60 % [47]. A recent meta-analysis examining studies from 2000 to 2012 reported a primary failure rate (defined as non usable AVF for dialysis up to 6 months post creation) of 23 % [48]. A scoring system has been developed with the ability to predict the likelihood of failure to mature based on the patient clinical profile including factors such as age (>65 years), coronary artery disease, peripheral vascular disease and race [10]; however, elderly patients have a higher fistula failure rate [49], and the combination of age and diabetes impairs fistula outcome with significantly higher failure rates of up to 42 % [26]. A recent cohort study on the factors predicting failure of the AV ‘fistula first’ policy in the elderly demonstrated that there is an association of older age, female gender, black race, diabetes, cardiac failure, shorter pre-ESRD nephrology care and predialysis AVF failure, suggesting that the rate of AVF failure increases by 1 % for every year above the age of 67 years [50]. The aging incident ESRD population might require different strategies in order to minimize the risk of failure and the number of surgical procedures. A recent meta-analysis showed a significant higher rate of radial-cephalic AVF failure in the elderly compared to younger patients, with a pooled effect in favor of the elbow fistula [49]. The elbow fistula created at the origin of the radial artery is an efficient primary choice in elderly patients, and has a higher survival rate compared to wrist and snuff-box AVFs [31, 51]. In this regard, the bend of the elbow area is of great strategic interest for VA surgery. Arteries of adequate size and less affected by atherosclerotic processes, the venous network connecting the forearm and the arm, and presence of a patent perforating vein of the elbow allow the surgeon great flexibility in the type of AVF to construct. The perforating vein fistula may be preferred in elderly patients with diabetes and hypertension [52]. Thus, in elderly patients conservation of proximal access sites might be of lesser importance due to their limited life expectancy, and a more liberal use of proximal access types may be justified [49]. However, especially in the elderly, a VA conundrum does exist, as the distal VA more likely results in lower access blood flow and high incidence of early failure, although it has been demonstrated that the use of microsurgery enabled the creation of distal AVFs in elderly patients aged >70 years with an acceptable risk of failure [53]; on the other hand, the proximal VA more likely results in very high access blood flow, increasing the risk of steal syndrome and congestive heart failure.

An Italian perspective

Although there is not an Italian model of dialysis access creation, the arteriovenous access surgery has traditionally been performed by nephrologists with little involvement of surgeons [54]. A knowledge of the different surgical techniques [53] is helpful in making the nephrologist a more active proponent of AVF creation. As demonstrated in a recent Italian survey, AVF still remains the dialysis access with highest prevalence also in older patients, with an excellent survival rate [55]. Again, the Italian data from the DOPPS study confirm the high rate of AVFs both in the prevalent and, more importantly, in incident patients [56]. In Italy, among patients with 4 or more months pre-ESRD care prior to starting chronic hemodialysis, 71 % had AV access. This indicates that the health service structure and organization may influence the delivery of vascular access care; for example, multiple centers sharing the services of a vascular access healthcare team reduces the waiting time for surgical creation. The overall attitudes towards native AVF as the preferred vascular access may partly explain the lower rate of AVG (7 % in prevalent patients). However, the complexity of AVF and AVG surgery with the aging of the dialysis population may explain the increase of tunneled catheters (25 % in prevalent patients).

Conclusions

It is well known that observational studies that established the superiority of fistulas have important limitations and a randomized study comparing mortality with different access strategies is very difficult to plan. The risk of biases in studies comparing clinical outcomes by HD access type is substantial [57], especially when elderly patients are included. To provide an optimal VA option in elderly people a semantic paradigm shift has been recently suggested: it should address comorbidity as the main subject line, and then age becomes one of the many covariates, instead of an independent risk factor for mortality [58]. Age should not be a limiting factor when determining candidacy for AVF creation [59].

In conclusion, due to the heterogeneity in life expectancy, health status, health priorities, and illness experiences of the elderly that could be difficult to estimate, no approach to VA can be expected to meet the needs of all older adults with advanced kidney disease. Moreover, among priorities for optimizing AV decision-making, strong patient preferences regarding access type and site, and management of access infection have emerged as most important [60]. A collaborative decision-making process around VA for hemodialysis should always be explored. In this context, our opinion is that a multidisciplinary team should carefully assess elderly patients starting on dialysis, in order to identify the most appropriate VA. In these circumstances, we believe that dialysis VA selection in the elderly should be guided by the patient’s preference and surgeon’s experience, based on comprehensive, balanced and unbiased information, including the relative advantages and disadvantages (Table 2), adopting an individualized approach that strives to achieve the best outcomes regardless of age.
Table 2

VA advantages and disadvantages in the elderly

 

Advantages

Disadvantages

Pre-emptive AVF

No age limit for this procedure with adequate vessels

Lower infection rates compared to CVC and AVG

Better survival (?)

Patients can shower

Competing risk of death before HD start

Higher rates of failure to mature compared to AVG

More AVFs created than used (increased morbidity and costs)

AVF after dialysis start

Surgery as needed

Most functioning AVF will be used

Advantages of pre-emptive AVF are maintained, but CVC is needed

Start of dialysis with a CVC

Higher AVF dysfunction and infection rates compared to pre-emptive AVF

Higher rates of failure to mature compared to AVG

With low mean survival, actual AVF utilization may be short

AVG

Short timing from procedure to use (days–weeks)

Lower infection rates compared to CVC

Higher cost

Needs accurate maintenance with interventional procedures

CVC

Quick and easy procedure

No needle punctures

Higher patient preference

Increased infection rates, carrying higher morbidity and mortality

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical standards

The research does not involve human participants or animals.

Informed consent is not required.

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

References

  1. 1.
    Fassett RG (2014) Current and emerging treatment options for the elederly patients with chronic kidney disease. Clin Interv Aging 9:191–199CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lok C, Foley R (2013) Vascular access morbidity and mortality: trend of the last decade. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 8:1213–1219CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Renal replacement therapy in Europe (2015) a summary of the 2012 ERA-EDTA Registry Annual Report. Clin Kidney J 8(3):248–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) CKD Work Group (2013) KDIGO clinical practice guidelines for the evaluation and management of chronic kidney disease. Kidney Int Suppl 3:1–150Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vachharajani TJ, Moossavi S, Jordan JR et al (2011) Re-evaluating the fistula first iniziative in octogenarians on hemodialysis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 6:1663–1667CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Richardson Al II, Leake A, Schmieder GC et al (2009) Should fistula really be first in the elderly patients? J Vasc Access 10(3):199–202Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chan MR, Sanchez RJ, Young HN, Yevzlin AS (2007) Vascular access outcomes in the elderly hemodialysis population: a USRDS study. Semin Dial 20:606–610CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Weyde W, Letachowicz W, Kusztal M et al (2006) Outcome of autogenous fistula construction in hemodialyzed patients over 75 years of age. Blood Purif 24:190–195CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hicks CV, Canner JK, Arhuidese I et al (2015) Mortality benefits of different hemodialysis access type are age dependent. J Vasc Surg 61:449–456CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lok CE, Allon M, Moist L, Oliver MJ et al (2006) Risk equation determining unsuccessful cannulation events and failure to maturation in arteriovenous fistulas (REDUCE FTM I). J Am Soc Nephrol 17:3204–3212CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    O’Hare AM, Choi AI, Bertenthal D et al (2007) Age affect outcomes in chronic kidney disease. J Am Soc Nephrology 18:2758–2765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Moist LM, Lok CE, Vachharajani TJ et al (2012) Optimal hemodialysis vascular access in the elderly patient. Semin Dial 25:640–648CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Murea M, James KM, Russel GB et al (2014) Risk of catheter-related bloodstream infection in elderly patients on hemodialysis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 9:764–770CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Olsha O, Hijazi J, Goldin I (2015) Shemesh. Vascular access in hemodialisis patients older than 80 years. J Vasc Surg 61:177–183CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    DeSilva RN, Patibandla BK, Vin Y et al (2013) Fistula first is not always the best strategy for the elderly. J Am Soc Nephron 24:1297–1304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bargman JN (2015) Timing of initiation of RRT and modality selection. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 10:1072–1077CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Xue JL, Dahl D, Ebben JP, Collins AJ (2003) The association of initial hemodialysis access type with mortality outcomes in elderly Medicare ESRD patients. Am J Kidney Dis 42:1013–1019CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    DeSilva RN, Sandhu GS, Garg J, Goldfarb-Rumyantzev AS (2012) Association between initial type of hemodialysis access used in the elderly and mortality. Hemodial Int 16:233–241CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hod T, Patibandla BK, Brown RS, Goldfarb-Rumyantzev AS (2015) Arteriovenous fistula placement in the elderly: when is the optimal time? J Am Soc Nephrol 26:448–456CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schechter SM, Skandari R, Zalunardo R (2014) Timing of arteriovenous fistula creation in patients with CKD: a decision analysis. Am J Kidney Dis 63:95–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gomes A, Schmidt R, Wish J (2013) Re-envisioning fistula firsy in a patient-centered culture. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 8:1791–1797CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tordoir JH, Bode AS, van Loon MM (2015) Preferred strategy for hemodialysis access creation in elderly patients. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 49:738–743CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Brunori G (2012) Treatment of chronic kidney disease in the elderly:diet or conservative management? J Nephrol 25(Suppl 19):S28–S31CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Combe C, Bérard X (2013) Dialysis: “catheter last” not “fistula first” in elderly patients. Nat Rev Nephrol 9:632–634CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Quarello F, Forneris G, Borca M, Pozzato M (2006) Do central venous catheters have advantages over arteriovenous fistulas or grafts? J Nephrology 19:265–279Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tordoir J, Canaud B, Haage P et al (2007) EBPG on Vascular Access. Nephrol Dial Transplant 22:ii88–ii117Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zhao Y, Li Z, Zhang L, Yang J, Yang Y, Tang Y, Fu P (2014) Citrate versus heparin lock for hemodialysis catheters: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Kidney Dis 63(3):479–490CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bowling CB, Muntner P (2012) Epidemiology of chronic kidney disease among older adults: a focus on the oldest old. Jerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 67:1379–1386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zhang JC, Al-Jaishi AA, Na Y, de Sa E, Moist LM (2014) Association between vascular access type and patient mortality among elederly patients on hemodialysis in Canada. Hemodial Int 18:616–624CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Noordzij M, Jager KJ, van der Veer SN et al (2014) Use of vascular access for haemodialysis in Europe: a report from the ERA-EDTA Registry. Nephrol Dial Transplant 29:1956–1964CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bonforte G, Zerbi S, Pasi A, Sangalli R, Rivera R, Surian M (2000) Distal arteriovenous fistulas in elderly hemodialysis patients. J Vasc Access 1:144–147PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Borzumati M, Funaro L, Mancini E, Resentini V, Baroni A (2013) Survival and complications of arteriovenous fistula dialysis access in an elderly population. J Vasc Access 14:330–334CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Swindlehurst N, Swindlehurst A, Lumgair H et al (2011) Vascular access for hemodialysis in elderly. J Vasc Surg 53:1039–1043CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Weale AR, Bevis P, Neary WD et al (2008) Radiocephalic and brachiocephalic arteriovenous fistula outcomes in the elderly. J Vasc Surg 47:144–150CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Woo K, Goldman D, Romley JA (2015) Early failure of dialysis access among the elderly in the era of fistula first. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 10–16Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lok CE, Sontrop JM, Tomlinson G, Rajan D, Cattral M, Oreopoulos G, Harris J, Moist L (2013) Cumulative patency of contemporary fistulas versus grafts (2000–2010). Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 8:810–818CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Al-Jaishi A, Moist L (2014) Fistula elegibility: a work in progress. Semin Dial 27:173–178CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Claudeanos KT, Hudgins J, Keahey G, Cull DL (2015) Carsten CG3rd. Fistula in octogenarians: are they beneficial? Ann Vasc Surg 29:98–102CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Azevedo PN, Turmel-Ridrigues L (2015) Never to old for an autogenous dialysis fistula? Results of endovascular interventions in nonagenarians. Semin Dial 28:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Grubbs V, Wasse H, Vittinghoff E, Grimes BA, Johansen KL (2014) Health status as a potential mediator of the association between hemodialysis vascular access and mortality. Nephrol Dial Transplant 29:892–898CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Lee T, Barker J, Allon M (2007) Comparison of survival of upper arm fistulas and grafts after failed forarem fistula. J Am Soc Nephrol 18:1936–1941CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Drew DA, Lok CE, Cohen JT et al (2015) Vascular access choice in incident hemodialysis patients: a decision analysis. J Am Soc Nephrol 26:183–191CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    van der Veer SN, Ravani P, Coentrão L et al (2015) Barriers to adopting a fistula-first policy in Europe: an international survey among national experts. J Vasc Access 16:113–119CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Nadeau-Fredette AC, Goupil R, Montreuil B, Carignan A, Leblanc M (2013) Arteriovenous fistula for the 80 years and older patients on hemodialysis: is it worth it? Hemodial International 17:594–601Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    National Kidney Foundation (2006) K/DOQI Clinical Practical Guidelines for Vascular Access 2006. Am J Kidney Dis 48(Suppl S1):S176–S273Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Georgiadis GS, Charalampidis DG, Argyriou C, Georgakarakos EI, Lazarides MK (2015) The necessity for routine pre-operative ultrasound mapping before arteriovenous fistula creation: a meta-analysis. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 49(5):600–605CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Dember LM, Beck GJ, Allon M et al (2008) Effect of clopidogrel on early failure of arteriovenous fistulas for hemodialysis: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 299:2164–2171CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Al-Jaishi AA, Oliver MJ, Thomas SM et al (2014) Patency ratesof the arteriovenous fistula for hemodialysis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Kidney Dis 63(3):464–478CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Lazarides MK, Georgiadis GS, Antoniou GA, Staramos DN (2007) A meta-analysis of dialysis access outcome in elderly patients. J Vasc Surg 45:420–426CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Hod T, DeSilva RN, Patibandla BK et al (2014) Factors predicting failure of AV “fistula first” policy in the elderly. Hemodial Int 18:507–515Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    de Leur K, Ozturk C, Vaan Zeeland ML et al (2013) Vascular access outcome in the elderly dialysis patient in combination with the quality of life. Vasc Endovascular Surg 47:444–448CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Palmes D, Kebschull L, Schaefer RM, Peister F, Konner K (2011) Perforating vein fistula is superior to forearm fistula in elderly haemodialysis patients with diabetes and arterial hypertension. Nephrol Dial Transplant 26:3309–3314CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Pirozzi N, Giuliani A, Grandi T et al (2014) Creation of autogenous radial cephalic wrist access for hemodialysis in the elderly using microsurgery. J Vasc Access 15:12–17CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Sreenarasimhaiah V, Ravani P (2005) Arteriovenous fistula surgery: an American perspective from Italy. Semin Dial 18(6):542–549CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Venturelli C, Bandera A, Zubani R et al (2013) Vascular access in older patients: an Italian survey. J Nephrol 26(6):1122–1127CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Pisoni RL, Zepel L, Port FK, Robinson BM (2015) Trends in US vascular access use, patient preferences, and related practices: an update from the US DOPPS practice monitor with international comparisons. Am J Kidney Dis 65(6):905–915CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Quinn R, Ravani P (2014) Fistula-first and catheter-last: fading certainties and growing doubts. Nephrol Dial Transplant 29:727–730CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Davidson I, Gallieni M (2015) Optimizing vascular access in the elderly: words we use affect patient care. J Vasc Access 16(6):437–438CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Lok CE, Oliver MJ, Su J, Bhola C, Hannigan N, Jassal SV (2005) Arteriovenous fistula outcomes in the era of the elderly dialysis population. Kidney Int 67:2462–2469CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    van der Veer SN, Haller CM, Pittens CA et al (2015) Setting priorities for optimizing vascular access decsion making: an international survey of patients and clinicians. PLoS One 10(7):1–13Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Italian Society of Nephrology 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carlo Lomonte
    • 1
  • Giacomo Forneris
    • 2
  • Maurizio Gallieni
    • 3
  • Luigi Tazza
    • 4
  • Mario Meola
    • 5
    • 6
  • Massimo Lodi
    • 7
  • Massimo Senatore
    • 8
  • Walter Morale
    • 9
  • Monica Spina
    • 10
  • Marcello Napoli
    • 11
  • Decenzio Bonucchi
    • 12
  • Franco Galli
    • 13
  1. 1.U.O.C. di Nefrologia e DialisiEnte Ecclesiastico Ospedale “F.Miulli”Acquaviva delle FontiItaly
  2. 2.Struttura Complessa a Direzione Universitaria di Nefrologia e Dialisi, Ospedale Giovanni BoscoTurinItaly
  3. 3.Unità di Nefrologia e Dialisi, Ospedale San CarloMilanItaly
  4. 4.Dipartimento di Scienze Chirurgiche, Policlinico GemelliUniversità Cattolica Sacro CuoreRomeItaly
  5. 5.Dipartimento di MedicinaUniversità di PisaPisaItaly
  6. 6.Scuola Superiore Sant’AnnaPisaItaly
  7. 7.Unità di Nefrologia e Dialisi, Ospedale Santo SpiritoPescaraItaly
  8. 8.U.O.C. di Nefrologia e Dialisi, Ospedale AnnunziataCosenzaItaly
  9. 9.Unità di Nefrologia e Dialisi, A.O. CannizzaroCataniaItaly
  10. 10.Unità di Nefrologia e Dialisi, Ospedale San Gavino MonrealeCagliariItaly
  11. 11.U.O.C. di Nefrologia e Dialisi, Ospedale Santa Caterina NovellaGalatinaItaly
  12. 12.Unità di Nefrologia e Dialisi, Ospedale di CarpiCarpiItaly
  13. 13.Unità di Nefrologia IRCCS, Fondazione Salvatore MaugeriPaviaItaly

Personalised recommendations