Why the study?
Does the creation of arteriovenous communications compared to other means of renal replacement therapy reduce death or heart failure re-hospitalization in patients with end-stage heart failure?
Does the creation of arteriovenous communications compared to other means of renal replacement therapy reduce death or heart failure re-hospitalization in patients with end-stage heart failure?
In patients with end-stage heart failure requiring renal replacement therapy, arteriovenous communications are associated with significantly higher morbidity and mortality compared to central venous or intraperitoneal catheters.
AVC may increase risk with RRT in end-stage HF; leaves open optimal modality and causality pending trials.
OBJECTIVE: Chronic intermittent renal replacement therapy(RRT) is an alternate method of decongestion for patients presenting with diuretic-resistant, end-stage heart failure(HF) and cardiorenal syndrome. The optimal method of vascular access has not been confirmed. This study investigated the 6-month outcomes of patients with end-stage HF after the creation of arteriovenous communications (AVC) compared with other means of RRT. METHODS: We treated 40 patients with chronic, intermittent, ambulatory RRT, of whom 15 (37.5%; Group A) underwent creation of AVC, and 25 (62.5%; Group B) received intraperitoneal (n=6) or internal jugular catheters (n=19) with the goal of achieving body weight stabilization and relief from congestion. RESULTS: The characteristics of the two groups were similar. According to Cox regression analysis, the 6-month rate of death or re-hospitalization for HF was significantly higher in Group A (73%) than in Group B (44%); hazard ratio (HR): 2.58; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.2-6.2; P=0.02. Over a 6-month follow-up, the cumulative survival was significantly shorter (P=0.03) in Group A (13.8±10 weeks) than in Group B (20.7±7 weeks). In the 15 patients who received AVC, the only independent predictor of adverse outcome at 6 months was serum total bilirubin concentration (HR 2.5; 95% CI 1.1-5.7, p=0.02), whereas in the 25 patients who underwent other means of RRT, pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) was identified as a risk factor for hospitalization or death at 1-year follow-up (HR 1.26; 95% CI 1.1-1.57, p=0.04). CONCLUSION: In patients with end-stage HF, the creation of AVC for intermittent RRT was followed by a significant increase in morbidity and mortality in comparison to the safe and effective placement of permanent central venous catheters. Patients with elevated PVR seem to comprise a group at high risk for adverse outcomes after central catheter insertion.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Repasos et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: