Venegas-Ramírez Jesús, Hernández-Fuentes Gustavo A, Palomares Claudia S, Diaz-Martinez Janet, Navarro-Cuellar Joel I, Calvo-Soto Patricia, Duran Carlos, Tapia-Vargas Rosa, Espíritu-Mojarro Ana C, Figueroa-Gutiérrez Alejandro, Guzmán-Esquivel José, Antonio-Flores Daniel, Meza-Robles Carmen, Delgado-Enciso Iván
Department of Nephrology, Mexican Institute of Social Security (IMSS), General Hospital of Zone No. 1, IMSS, Villa de Alvarez 28984, Mexico.
Department of Molecular Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Colima, Colima 28040, Mexico.
Medicina (Kaunas). 2025 Mar 25;61(4):584. doi: 10.3390/medicina61040584.
: Arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs) are the preferred vascular access for hemodialysis due to their impact on patient outcomes, including survival, infection rates, and overall quality of life. Despite strong recommendations favoring AVF, gaps in AVF utilization remain, influenced by clinical, demographic, and systemic factors. This study is the first to analyze survival outcomes associated with different dialysis vascular access types, adjusting for key clinical, demographic variables, and other comorbidities over extended periods. : This ambispective cohort study followed 428 hemodialysis patients over seven years. Patients were categorized based on their access type: AVF ( = 189), tunneled central venous catheter (CVC) ( = 178), and non-tunneled CVC ( = 61). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to estimate survival curves, and Cox proportional hazards regression adjusted for potential confounders, including age, diabetes, and hypertension. : The 2-year survival rates were as follows: AVF 94.1%, tunneled CVC 70.0%, and non-tunneled CVC 36.6%. The 7-year survival rates were as follows: AVF 65.5%, tunneled CVC 26.4%, and non-tunneled CVC 11.0%. Compared to AVF, tunneled CVC use was associated with a 2.8-fold increased risk of mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [AdHR] 2.8, 95% CI 2.0-4.1), while non-tunneled CVC increased the risk 5-fold (AdHR 5.0, 95% CI 3.3-7.6). Notably, older adults, women, and diabetic patients were disproportionately represented in the groups with tunneled and non-tunneled catheters. : Adjusted survival analyses highlight the significantly lower survival rates associated with CVC use compared to AVF. Non-tunneled catheters are generally not used for prolonged periods, and this cohort provides evidence of their prognosis for long-term use. These findings reinforce the need to prioritize AVF placement whenever feasible, reinforcing health education on this topic, to improve long-term outcomes for hemodialysis patients.
动静脉内瘘(AVF)因其对患者预后的影响,包括生存率、感染率和总体生活质量,是血液透析首选的血管通路。尽管有强烈建议支持使用AVF,但AVF的利用率仍存在差距,受到临床、人口统计学和系统因素的影响。本研究首次分析了与不同透析血管通路类型相关的生存结局,并在较长时期内对关键临床、人口统计学变量和其他合并症进行了调整。:这项前瞻性队列研究对428例血液透析患者进行了为期七年的随访。患者根据其血管通路类型进行分类:AVF(n = 189)、带隧道的中心静脉导管(CVC)(n = 178)和非隧道CVC(n = 61)。采用Kaplan-Meier生存分析来估计生存曲线,并使用Cox比例风险回归对潜在混杂因素进行调整,包括年龄、糖尿病和高血压。:2年生存率如下:AVF为94.1%,带隧道的CVC为70.0%,非隧道CVC为36.6%。7年生存率如下:AVF为65.5%,带隧道的CVC为26.4%,非隧道CVC为11.0%。与AVF相比,使用带隧道的CVC与死亡风险增加2.8倍相关(调整后风险比[AdHR]为2.8,95%可信区间为2.0 - 4.1),而非隧道CVC使风险增加5倍(AdHR为5.0,95%可信区间为3.3 - 7.6)。值得注意的是,老年人、女性和糖尿病患者在使用带隧道和非隧道导管的组中所占比例过高。:调整后的生存分析突出了与使用CVC相比,AVF的生存率显著较低。非隧道导管一般不长期使用,本队列提供了其长期使用预后的证据。这些发现强化了在可行时优先进行AVF置管的必要性,加强关于这一主题的健康教育,以改善血液透析患者的长期结局。