Lawrie Katerina, Waldauf Petr, Balaz Peter, Lacerda Ricardo, Aitken Emma, Letachowicz Krzysztof, D'Oria Mario, Di Maso Vittorio, Stasko Pavel, Gomes Antonio, Fontainhas Joana, Pekar Matej, Srdelic Alena, O'Neill Stephen
Department of Transplantation Surgery, Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic.
Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic.
Clin Kidney J. 2024 Aug 30;17(9):sfae272. doi: 10.1093/ckj/sfae272. eCollection 2024 Sep.
The arteriovenous access stage (AVAS) classification provides evaluation of upper extremity vessels for vascular access (VA) suitability. It divides patients into classes within three main groups: suitable for native fistula (AVAS1) or prosthetic graft (AVAS2), and patients not suitable for conventional native or prosthetic VA (AVAS3). We validated this system on a prospective dataset.
A prospective, international observational study (NCT04796558) involved 11 centres from 8 countries. Patient recruitment was from March 2021 to January 2024. Demographic data, risk factors, vessels parameters, VA types, AVAS class and early VA failure were collected. Percentage agreement was used to assess predictive ability of AVAS (comparison of AVAS and created VA) and consistency of AVAS assessment between evaluators. Pearson's Chi-squared test was used for comparison of early failure rate of conventional (predicted by AVAS) and unconventional (not predicted by AVAS) VA.
From 1034 enrolled patients, 935 had arteriovenous fistula or graft, 99 patients did not undergo VA creation due opting for alternative renal replacement therapies, experiencing health complications, death or non-compliance. AVAS1 had 91.2%, AVAS2 7.2% and AVAS3 1.6% of patients. Agreement between evaluators was 89%. The most frequently created VAs were radial-cephalic (46%) and brachial-cephalic (27%) fistulae. The accuracy of AVAS versus created access was 79%. In comparison, VA predicted by clinicians versus created access was 62.1%. Inaccuracy of AVAS prediction was more common with higher AVAS classes, and the most common reason for inaccuracy was creation of distal VA despite less favourable anatomy (17%). Patients with unconventional VA had higher early failure rate than patients with conventional VA (20% vs 9.3%, respectively, = .002).
AVAS is effective in predicting VA creation, but overall accuracy is reduced at higher AVAS classes when the complexity of decision-making increases and proximal vessels require preservation. When AVAS was followed by clinicians, early failure was significantly decreased.
动静脉通路阶段(AVAS)分类用于评估上肢血管是否适合建立血管通路(VA)。它将患者分为三个主要组中的不同类别:适合自体动静脉内瘘(AVAS1)或人工血管移植物(AVAS2),以及不适合传统自体或人工血管通路的患者(AVAS3)。我们在一个前瞻性数据集中对该系统进行了验证。
一项前瞻性国际观察性研究(NCT04796558)纳入了来自8个国家的11个中心。患者招募时间为2021年3月至2024年1月。收集了人口统计学数据、危险因素、血管参数、血管通路类型、AVAS类别和早期血管通路失败情况。采用百分比一致性来评估AVAS的预测能力(比较AVAS与实际建立的血管通路)以及评估者之间AVAS评估的一致性。采用Pearson卡方检验比较传统血管通路(由AVAS预测)和非传统血管通路(未由AVAS预测)的早期失败率。
在1034名入组患者中,935人建立了动静脉内瘘或人工血管移植物;99名患者因选择其他肾脏替代治疗、出现健康并发症、死亡或不依从而未进行血管通路建立。患者中AVAS1占91.2%,AVAS2占7.2%,AVAS3占1.6%。评估者之间的一致性为89%。最常建立的血管通路是桡动脉-头静脉内瘘(46%)和肱动脉-头静脉内瘘(27%)。AVAS相对于实际建立的血管通路的准确率为79%。相比之下,临床医生预测的血管通路相对于实际建立的血管通路的准确率为62.1%。AVAS预测不准确在较高AVAS类别中更为常见,最常见的不准确原因是尽管解剖结构不太有利但仍建立了远端血管通路(17%)。非传统血管通路的患者早期失败率高于传统血管通路的患者(分别为20%和9.3%,P = 0.002)。
AVAS在预测血管通路建立方面是有效的,但在较高AVAS类别中,当决策复杂性增加且需要保留近端血管时,总体准确率会降低。当临床医生遵循AVAS时,早期失败率显著降低。