Vascular Access Type and Survival Outcomes in Hemodialysis Patients: A Seven-Year Cohort Study

<i>Background and Objectives</i>: Arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs) are the preferred vascular access for hemodialysis due to their impact on patient outcomes, including survival, infection rates, and overall quality of life. Despite strong recommendations favoring AVF, gaps in AVF utilization remain, influenced by clinical, demographic, and systemic factors. This study is the first to analyze survival outcomes associated with different dialysis vascular access types, adjusting for key clinical, demographic variables, and other comorbidities over extended periods. <i>Materials and Methods</i>: This ambispective cohort study followed 428 hemodialysis patients over seven years. Patients were categorized based on their access type: AVF (<i>n</i> = 189), tunneled central venous catheter (CVC) (<i>n</i> = 178), and non-tunneled CVC (<i>n</i> = 61). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to estimate survival curves, and Cox proportional hazards regression adjusted for potential confounders, including age, diabetes, and hypertension. <i>Results</i>: The 2-year survival rates were as follows: AVF 94.1%, tunneled CVC 70.0%, and non-tunneled CVC 36.6%. The 7-year survival rates were as follows: AVF 65.5%, tunneled CVC 26.4%, and non-tunneled CVC 11.0%. Compared to AVF, tunneled CVC use was associated with a 2.8-fold increased risk of mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [AdHR] 2.8, 95% CI 2.0-4.1), while non-tunneled CVC increased the risk 5-fold (AdHR 5.0, 95% CI 3.3-7.6). Notably, older adults, women, and diabetic patients were disproportionately represented in the groups with tunneled and non-tunneled catheters. <i>Conclusions</i>: Adjusted survival analyses highlight the significantly lower survival rates associated with CVC use compared to AVF. Non-tunneled catheters are generally not used for prolonged periods, and this cohort provides evidence of their prognosis for long-term use. These findings reinforce the need to prioritize AVF placement whenever feasible, reinforcing health education on this topic, to improve long-term outcomes for hemodialysis patients.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Medicina
Published
2025-03-25
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina61040584
Citations
8
Primary Topic
Central Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
20.13
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Vascular Access Type and Survival Outcomes in Hemodialysis Patients: A Seven-Year Cohort Study

Carmen Meza‐Robles, Ana C. Espíritu-Mojarro, Iván Delgado‐Enciso, Alejandro Figueroa-Gutiérrez et al.
8 citations
Medicina
Central Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis
20.13
article

Vascular Access Type and Survival Outcomes in Hemodialysis Patients: A Seven-Year Cohort Study

Carmen Meza‐Robles, Ana C. Espíritu-Mojarro, Iván Delgado‐Enciso, Alejandro Figueroa-Gutiérrez, José Guzmán-Esquivel, Gustavo A. Hernández‐Fuentes, Janet Diaz‐Martinez, Jesús Venegas-Ramírez, Carlos A. Duran, C. Palomares, Patricia Calvo-Soto, Daniel Antonio-Flores, Joel I. Navarro-Cuellar, Rosa Tapia-Vargas
article en
8 citations

Abstract

<i>Background and Objectives</i>: Arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs) are the preferred vascular access for hemodialysis due to their impact on patient outcomes, including survival, infection rates, and overall quality of life. Despite strong recommendations favoring AVF, gaps in AVF utilization remain, influenced by clinical, demographic, and systemic factors. This study is the first to analyze survival outcomes associated with different dialysis vascular access types, adjusting for key clinical, demographic variables, and other comorbidities over extended periods. <i>Materials and Methods</i>: This ambispective cohort study followed 428 hemodialysis patients over seven years. Patients were categorized based on their access type: AVF (<i>n</i> = 189), tunneled central venous catheter (CVC) (<i>n</i> = 178), and non-tunneled CVC (<i>n</i> = 61). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to estimate survival curves, and Cox proportional hazards regression adjusted for potential confounders, including age, diabetes, and hypertension. <i>Results</i>: The 2-year survival rates were as follows: AVF 94.1%, tunneled CVC 70.0%, and non-tunneled CVC 36.6%. The 7-year survival rates were as follows: AVF 65.5%, tunneled CVC 26.4%, and non-tunneled CVC 11.0%. Compared to AVF, tunneled CVC use was associated with a 2.8-fold increased risk of mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [AdHR] 2.8, 95% CI 2.0-4.1), while non-tunneled CVC increased the risk 5-fold (AdHR 5.0, 95% CI 3.3-7.6). Notably, older adults, women, and diabetic patients were disproportionately represented in the groups with tunneled and non-tunneled catheters. <i>Conclusions</i>: Adjusted survival analyses highlight the significantly lower survival rates associated with CVC use compared to AVF. Non-tunneled catheters are generally not used for prolonged periods, and this cohort provides evidence of their prognosis for long-term use. These findings reinforce the need to prioritize AVF placement whenever feasible, reinforcing health education on this topic, to improve long-term outcomes for hemodialysis patients.

MedicinaVol. 61(4)
Mexican Social Security Institute (MX), Florida International University (US), Universidad de Colima (MX)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 1%
Central Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis
20.13
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.