Reasons for Referral to a Free-Standing Vascular Access Center

Background: Patients with AVF or AVG dysfunction are often referred to vascular access centers for a variety of clinical reasons including decreased blood flow and prolonged bleeding amongst others. Unfortunately patients are rarely educated about these potential future complications at the time of AVF or AVG creation. One of the reasons for this is that the frequency of these different complications in a real world setting is unclear. We report herein on the reasons for referral to our free standing vascular access center. Methods: Data from 2012 to 2020 was collected across 6 dialysis units in North Carolina. The data was de-identified and grouped by patient vascular access type (AVF or AVG). Results: From 2012 to 2020, the reasons for referral for all vascular access patients (AVF and AVG) to a vascular access center were decreased access flow (39.7%), pain (8.2%), aneurysm formation (8.7%), edema (5.5%), non-maturation (2.7%), prolonged bleeding (10.1%), steal physiology (1.7%), pulling clots (3.9%), difficulty cannulating (8.5%), infiltration (1.3%), high venous pressure (3.5%), low arterial pressure (1.2%), and pulsatile flow (1.7%). The most common causes of referral for patients with an AVF were decreased access flow (33%), aneurysm formation (13.9%), and prolonged bleeding (11.9%). For patients with an AVG the three top reasons for referral to a vascular access center were decreased access flow (43.6%), prolonged bleeding (10.5%), and edema (7.3%). Conclusion: Our results highlight differences in clinic visit reason based on vascular access type. This data highlights a need for vascular access clinic administrators to better understand their patient population to better allocate resources and to educate patients and staff about likely reasons for vascular access problems associated with AVF or AVG. Ultimately, it is difficult to understand true clinic-level differences without knowing the specific patient population served; by collecting individual clinic data and implementing staff and patient education, we seek to provide a foundation for reducing clinic visits and improving vascular access clinic efficiency in the future.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
Published
2025-10-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1681/asn.2025wqvj2bfc
Primary Topic
Central Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Reasons for Referral to a Free-Standing Vascular Access Center

Prabir Roy‐Chaudhury, Vinay A. Sudarsanam, Gang Xi
Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
Central Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis
article

Reasons for Referral to a Free-Standing Vascular Access Center

Prabir Roy‐Chaudhury, Vinay A. Sudarsanam, Gang Xi
article en

Abstract

Background: Patients with AVF or AVG dysfunction are often referred to vascular access centers for a variety of clinical reasons including decreased blood flow and prolonged bleeding amongst others. Unfortunately patients are rarely educated about these potential future complications at the time of AVF or AVG creation. One of the reasons for this is that the frequency of these different complications in a real world setting is unclear. We report herein on the reasons for referral to our free standing vascular access center. Methods: Data from 2012 to 2020 was collected across 6 dialysis units in North Carolina. The data was de-identified and grouped by patient vascular access type (AVF or AVG). Results: From 2012 to 2020, the reasons for referral for all vascular access patients (AVF and AVG) to a vascular access center were decreased access flow (39.7%), pain (8.2%), aneurysm formation (8.7%), edema (5.5%), non-maturation (2.7%), prolonged bleeding (10.1%), steal physiology (1.7%), pulling clots (3.9%), difficulty cannulating (8.5%), infiltration (1.3%), high venous pressure (3.5%), low arterial pressure (1.2%), and pulsatile flow (1.7%). The most common causes of referral for patients with an AVF were decreased access flow (33%), aneurysm formation (13.9%), and prolonged bleeding (11.9%). For patients with an AVG the three top reasons for referral to a vascular access center were decreased access flow (43.6%), prolonged bleeding (10.5%), and edema (7.3%). Conclusion: Our results highlight differences in clinic visit reason based on vascular access type. This data highlights a need for vascular access clinic administrators to better understand their patient population to better allocate resources and to educate patients and staff about likely reasons for vascular access problems associated with AVF or AVG. Ultimately, it is difficult to understand true clinic-level differences without knowing the specific patient population served; by collecting individual clinic data and implementing staff and patient education, we seek to provide a foundation for reducing clinic visits and improving vascular access clinic efficiency in the future.

Journal of the American Society of NephrologyVol. 36(10S)
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 53%
Central Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis
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.