University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust, Derby, UK.
UK Renal Registry, Bristol, UK.
J Vasc Access. 2022 Mar;23(2):212-224. doi: 10.1177/1129729820983174. Epub 2021 Jan 10.
Cannulation of arteriovenous access for haemodialysis affects longevity of the access, associates with complications and affects patients' experiences of haemodialysis. Buttonhole and rope ladder techniques were developed to reduce complications. However, studies that compare these two techniques report disparate results. This systematic review performs an in-depth exploration of RCTs, with a specific focus on cannulation as a complex intervention.
A PICO question and protocol was developed as per PRISMA-P guidance and registered on PROSPERO (CRD42018094656 https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=112895). The systematic review included any RCT performed on adult patients with end-stage kidney disease undergoing cannulation of arteriovenous fistulae or grafts for in-centre haemodialysis, as performed by healthcare staff. Assessment of quality of RCTs and data extraction were performed by two co-authors independently. Data were extracted on the study design, intervention and comparator and outcomes, including patency, infection and patients' experiences.
The literature search identified 241 records. Ten records met inclusion criteria, which described five different RCTs that compared buttonhole to either rope ladder or usual practice. Results were disparate, with patency and infection results varying. Pain Visual Analogue scores were the only measure used to capture patients' experiences and results were inconclusive. All RCTs had differences and limitations in study design that could explain the disparity in results.
Current evidence does not allow definitive conclusions as to whether buttonhole or rope ladder needling technique is superior. Future RCTs should describe interventions and comparators with adequate detail, embed process evaluation, use standardised outcome measures and build on feasibility studies to produce definitive results.
动静脉通路的置管会影响通路的使用寿命,与并发症有关,并影响患者的血液透析体验。扣眼和绳梯技术的发展旨在减少并发症。然而,比较这两种技术的研究报告结果存在差异。本系统评价深入探讨了 RCT 研究,特别关注作为复杂干预措施的置管。
根据 PRISMA-P 指南制定了 PICO 问题和方案,并在 PROSPERO(CRD42018094656 https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=112895)上注册。系统评价纳入了对接受中心血液透析的终末期肾病成年患者进行动静脉瘘或移植物置管的 RCT 研究,由医护人员进行。两名合著者独立评估 RCT 的质量并提取数据。提取的信息包括研究设计、干预措施和对照组以及结局,包括通畅性、感染和患者体验。
文献检索确定了 241 条记录。符合纳入标准的记录有 10 条,描述了 5 项不同的 RCT 研究,比较了扣眼与绳梯或常规护理的置管技术。结果存在差异,通畅率和感染结果不同。疼痛视觉模拟评分是唯一用于捕捉患者体验的衡量标准,结果不确定。所有 RCT 在研究设计方面都存在差异和局限性,这可能解释了结果的差异。
目前的证据尚不能确定扣眼或绳梯置管技术是否更优越。未来的 RCT 应详细描述干预措施和对照组,嵌入过程评估,使用标准化的结局衡量标准,并在可行性研究的基础上得出明确的结果。