I insisted on having and keeping a central line permcath, even though everyone said it would be useless and dangerous because of frequent infections. But I had mine for nine years and it only needed to be replaced three times for infection, and even this replacement was a simple removal and re-insertion of the line along a guide wire. With a permcath, there was 1) no pain on being hooked up to or taken off from the machine; 2) a blood flow of 450; 3) no recirculation; 4) no problems with deterioration or initial failure of the fistula; 5) no need for repeated testing of the fistula function; 6) no permanent disfigurement of the body; and 7) complete freedom of movement of both arms for the entire time on dialysis. As long as you can keep the entry site of the catheter clean and dry, the permcath is a far superior access to a fistula, whatever nephrologists say, who mainly base their assessment on very old data about ancient permcath models.
This is exactly what I am going through right now. I have had mine for 8 months now without ANY problem and I keep getting harassed at the center to have the fistula done. It functions beautifully in my opinion, I know the rate of flow is above 400 and I have been told that I dialyize well. I take showers but avoid direct contact, let it dry and then use a gauze to clean the site. I do not dress it, only tape it down to keep it from moving and being too visible. I have totally adjusted to it and am comfortable about it, thus my reluctance to get a fistula. Would there be some reason I would have trouble being evaluated for a possible transplant recipient if I refuse the advice and not get the fistula? Would that be some non-compliant rubbish?
... if you have a choice of arms, insist on the non-dominant arm if possible.....