Dumaine Chance S, Brown Robert S, MacRae Jennifer M, Oliver Matthew J, Ravani Pietro, Quinn Robert R
Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
Division of Nephrology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Semin Dial. 2018 Jan;31(1):3-10. doi: 10.1111/sdi.12655. Epub 2017 Nov 2.
Since the publication of the first vascular access clinical practice guidelines in 1997, the global nephrology community has dedicated significant time and resources toward increasing the prevalence of arteriovenous fistulas and decreasing the prevalence of central venous catheters for hemodialysis. These efforts have been bolstered by observational studies showing an association between catheter use and increased patient morbidity and mortality. To date, however, no randomized comparisons of the outcomes of different forms of vascular access have been conducted. There is mounting evidence that much of the difference in patient outcomes may be explained by patient factors, rather than choice of vascular access. Some have called into question the appropriateness of fistula creation for certain patient populations, such as those with limited life expectancy and those at high risk of fistula-related complications. In this review, we explore the extent to which catheters and fistulas exhibit the characteristics of the "ideal" vascular access and highlight the significant knowledge gaps that exist in the current literature. Further studies, ideally randomized comparisons of different forms of vascular access, are required to better inform shared decision making.
自1997年首次发布血管通路临床实践指南以来,全球肾脏病学界投入了大量时间和资源,以提高动静脉内瘘的普及率,并降低用于血液透析的中心静脉导管的普及率。观察性研究表明导管使用与患者发病率和死亡率增加之间存在关联,这进一步推动了这些努力。然而,迄今为止,尚未对不同形式血管通路的结局进行随机对照比较。越来越多的证据表明,患者结局的差异很大程度上可能由患者因素而非血管通路的选择来解释。对于某些患者群体,如预期寿命有限和发生内瘘相关并发症风险较高的患者,有人质疑创建内瘘的合理性。在本综述中,我们探讨了导管和内瘘在多大程度上具备“理想”血管通路的特征,并强调了当前文献中存在的重大知识空白。需要开展进一步研究,理想情况下是对不同形式血管通路进行随机对照比较,以便为共同决策提供更充分的信息。