Key result
Ipsilateral cardiovascular implantable electronic devices in hemodialysis patients had a higher central venous intervention rate than contralateral devices (0.59 vs 0.28 per access year, p<0.001).
Why the study?
Does ipsilateral CIED placement compared to contralateral placement increase the rate of access circuit and central venous interventions in hemodialysis patients?
Population
1235 chronic hemodialysis patients
Comparison
Ipsilateral cardiovascular implantable… vs Contralateral cardiovascular implantable…
Design
Cohort
Authors
Loading...
Ipsilateral CIED placement warrants caution in hemodialysis; leaves open whether strategy changes improve outcomes pending randomized trials.
Cohort (n=1,235)
No
Does ipsilateral CIED placement compared to contralateral placement increase the rate of access circuit and central venous interventions in hemodialysis patients?
Absolute Event Rate: 0.59% vs 0.28%
p-value: p=< 0.001
Ipsilateral placement of CIEDs and arteriovenous access in hemodialysis patients is associated with higher central venous intervention rates compared to contralateral placement, though overall access circuit intervention rates remain similar.
Saad et al. (2014) conducted a cohort in Chronic hemodialysis (n=1,235). Ipsilateral cardiovascular implantable electronic device vs. Contralateral cardiovascular implantable electronic device was evaluated on Central venous intervention rate (per access year) (p=< 0.001). Ipsilateral cardiovascular implantable electronic devices in hemodialysis patients had a higher central venous intervention rate than contralateral devices (0.59 vs 0.28 per access year, p<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: