PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
January 25, 2026International Journal of Surgery Global Health0 citations

Satisfaction and complications of vascular access-related interventions among hemodialysis patients: a cross-sectional study in Palestinian practice

View Full Paper
SSSarah SaifeHAHala Abu AyshehSSSakeena Saife

Key Points

  • The research aims to evaluate patient satisfaction and complications associated with different vascular access types in hemodialysis patients.
  • Conducted a cross-sectional study with 350 hemodialysis patients
  • Assessed types of vascular accesses and associated complications using the Vascular Access Questionnaire
  • Utilized ANOVA and related techniques for data analysis
  • AVFs were the most commonly used access type (75%) with fewer complications
  • CVCs had the highest rates of infection and disruption (20% usage)
  • Interventions like angioplasty improved satisfaction but increased physical complications
  • Catheter-based procedures had the highest infection and disruption rates

Abstract

Background: Hemodialysis continues to be a life-supportive treatment for patients with end-stage renal disease. It is dependent on access to suitable vascular access. The arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs) remain the most favorable type of access due to their lesser tendency toward infection and thrombosis. The other commonly used accesses include arteriovenous grafts and central venous catheters (CVCs). Complications range from thrombosis and infection to frequent disruption and emotional disturbances, often significantly affecting the quality of life. (Figure1) JOURNAL/ijsgh/04.03/02054256-202601000-00010/figure1/v/2026-01-21T140556Z/r/image-jpeg Methods: In this cross-sectional study, a total of 350 hemodialysis patients were recruited in two major health facilities across the State of Palestine. Types of vascular accesses used, the development of complications, and levels of patient satisfaction are assessed using the Vascular Access Questionnaire. Analyses of association by ANOVA and related techniques were made for vascular access types, interventions, and their results. Results: AVFs were the most commonly used access (75%), associated with better outcomes and fewer complications. CVCs, utilized by 20% of patients, had the highest rates of infection and routine disruption. Interventions like angioplasty were associated with improved satisfaction ( P = 0.03) but also increased physical complications ( P = 0.062) and routine disruption ( P = 0.001). Catheter-related procedures, such as exchanges over a guidewire, showed the highest rates of infection ( P < 0.001) and routine disruption ( P < 0.001). Conclusion: AVFs remain the preferred vascular access due to their superior safety profile and patient satisfaction. However, all types of vascular accesses are associated with significant physical and emotional burdens. Integrated, patient-centered approaches that balance clinical effectiveness with quality of life are required.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Saife et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6975b1cefeba4585c2d6d455https://doi.org/10.1097/gh9.0000000000000603
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Quality of Life of Dialysis Patients: Exploring the Influence of Membrane Hemocompatibility and Dialysis Practices on Psychosocial and Physical Symptoms2024 · 20 citations
  2. 2Vascular Access Perception and Quality of Life of Haemodialysis Patients2024 · 14 citations
  3. 3The Vascular Access Questionnaire: Assessing Patient-Reported Views of Vascular Access2008 · 107 citations
  4. 4CARE OF A PATIENT'S VASCULAR ACCESS FOR HAEMODIALYSIS: A NARRATIVE LITERATURE REVIEW2015 · 3 citations
  5. 5Long-Term Functional Patency and Cost-Effectiveness of Arteriovenous Fistula Creation under Regional Anesthesia: a Randomized Controlled Trial2020 · 47 citations