Combined functional and anatomical diagnostic endpoints for assessing arteriovenous fistula dysfunction.

Failure of arteriovenous fistulas (AVF) to mature and thrombosis in matured fistulas have been the major causes of morbidity and mortality in hemodialysis patients. Stenosis, which occurs due to adverse remodeling in AVFs, is one of the major underlying factors under both scenarios. Early diagnosis of a stenosis in an AVF can provide an opportunity to intervene in a timely manner for either assisting the maturation process or avoiding the thrombosis. The goal of surveillance strategies was to supplement the clinical evaluation (i.e., physical examination) of the AVF for better and earlier diagnosis of a developing stenosis. Surveillance strategies were mainly based on measurement of functional hemodynamic endpoints, including blood flow (Qa) to the vascular access and venous access pressure (VAP). As the changes in arterial pressure (MAP) affects the level of VAP, the ratio of VAP to MAP (VAPR = VAP/MAP) was used for diagnosis. A Qa < 400-500 mL/min or a VAPR > 0.55 is considered sign of significant stenosis, which requires immediate intervention. However, due to the complex nature of AVFs, the surveillance strategies have failed to consistently detect stenosis under different scenarios. VAPR has been primarily developed to detect outflow stenosis in arteriovenous grafts, and it hasn't been successful in accurate diagnosis of outflow lesions in AVFs. Similarly, AVFs can maintain relatively high blood flow despite the presence of a significant outflow stenosis and thus, Qa has been found to be a better predictor of only inflow lesions. Similar shortcomings have been reported in the detection of functional severity of coronary stenosis using diagnostic endpoints that were based on either flow or pressure. This limitation has been associated with the fact that both pressure and flow change in the presence of a stenosis and thus, hemodynamic diagnostic endpoints that employ only one of these parameters are inherently prone to inaccuracies. Recent attempts have resulted in development of new diagnostic endpoints that can combine the effects of pressure and flow. These new hemodynamic diagnostic endpoints have shown to be better predictors of functional severity of lesions as compared to either flow or pressure based counterparts. In this review article, we discussed the advantages and limitations of current functional and anatomical diagnostic endpoints in AVFs.