Who should be referred for a fistula? A survey of nephrologists

NDT Advance Access published online on February 22, 2010
Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation, doi:10.1093/ndt/gfq064

Who should be referred for a fistula? A survey of nephrologists

Wang Xi1, Jennifer MacNab2, Charmaine E. Lok3, Timmy C. Lee4, Ivan D. Maya5, Michele H. Mokrzycki6 and Louise M. Moist1

1 Division of Nephrology, London Health Sciences Center and the University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada 2 Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada 3 Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Toronto General Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada 4 Division of Nephrology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA 5 Division of Nephrology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA 6 Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY, USA

Correspondence and offprint requests to: Louise Moist; E-mail: louise.moist@lhsc.on.ca

Abstract

Background. There is marked variation in the use of the arteriovenous fistula (AVF) across programmes, regions and countries not explained by differences in patient demographics or comorbidities. The lack of clear criteria of who should or should not get a fistula may contribute to this, as well as barriers to creating AVFs.

Methods. We conducted a survey of Canadian and American nephrologists to assess the patient variables considered to determine the timing and type of access requested. Perceived barriers and absolute contraindications to access were also collected.

Results. An immediate referral for a fistula was more highly preferred when patients are <65 years old, have minimal comorbidities or have no history of failed accesses. In older patients, and in those with increased comorbidities or a previously failed fistula, US nephrologists selected arteriovenous grafts as an alternative to the fistula, while Canadian nephrologists selected primarily catheters. Referral for vascular mapping was more common in the USA than in Canada. Gender did not influence the timing or the type of access. Perceived barriers to establishing a mature fistula included patient refusal for creation (77%) or cannulation (58%), delay in decision regarding dialysis modality (71%), wait time for surgical creation (55%) and high failure-to-mature rate (52%). We found that 27% of Canadian and 43% of American nephrologists indicated no absolute contraindications for permanent vascular access.

Conclusions. This study demonstrated marked variability in timing and criteria used to select patients for referral for a vascular access between nephrologists practicing within Canada and the USA. Establishing minimal eligibility criteria for fistulae is an important area of future research.

Keywords: arteriovenous fistula; central venous catheter; haemodialysis; vascular access

Received for publication: 24. 8.09
Revision received 2. 1.10. Accepted in revised form: 25. 1.10

http://ndt.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/gfq064