Search

A more accurate descriptive and clinically useful diagnosis based upon pathophysiology for what is commonly referred to as venous outflow stenosis is inflow-outflow imbalance. In these cases, the total outflow capacity of the AV access is inadequate to handle the inflow volume (Qa) without an increase in pressure. The relative inadequacy of the access outflow capacity in comparison to Qa results in increased outflow resistance and a proportional increase in intraluminal pressure. The clinical indicators associated with venous stenosis are the resulting manifestations of this imbalance. The point at which this occurs is dependent upon variations in these two parameters-Qa and outflow resistance. The variations in these two parameters are considerable and reciprocal. Excessive Qa results in or can lead to an entire list of serious problems that adversely affect patient morbidity and mortality. Most studies dealing with AV access Qa reduction have been for the treatment of an existing condition rather than its prevention; however, prevention of disease rather than waiting for its development is an important tenet of medical practice. The resulting clinical picture of inflow-outflow imbalance is taken as an indication for corrective treatment. In the past, in most cases this has meant angioplasty to open the outflow if it is reduced; however, this clinical picture may be associated with an excessive Qa and angioplasty in these cases creates the risk for a further increase in Qa. It is the authors' opinion that access flow measurements should be a part of the evaluation of these cases prior to planning treatment. Using this information, a bimodal approach to primary treatment should be adopted involving either angioplasty for cases with a low or normal Qa or flow reduction in cases with an elevated Qa., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Rationale and Objective: This study aimed to develop a cosmesis scale to evaluate the cosmetic appearance of hemodialysis (HD) arteriovenous (AV) accesses from the perspective of the patient and clinician, which could be incorporated into clinical trials., Study Design: Using a modified Delphi process, two AV access cosmesis scale (AVACS) components were developed in a four-round Delphi panel consisting of two surveys and two consensus meetings with two rounds of patient consultation., Setting and Participants: The Delphi panel consisted of 15 voting members including five interventional or general nephrologists, five vascular surgeons, three interventional radiologists, and two vascular access nurse coordinators. Four patients experienced with vascular access were involved in patient question development., Analytical Approach: For a component to be included in the AVACS, it had to meet the prespecified panel consensus agreement of ⩾70%., Results: The clinician component of the AVACS includes nine questions on the following AV access features: scarring, skin discoloration, aneurysm/pseudoaneurysms and megafistula appearance. The patient component includes six questions about future vascular access decisions, interference with work or leisure activities, clothing choices, self-consciousness or attractiveness, emotional impact, and overall appearance., Limitations: Delphi panel methods are subjective by design, but with expert clinical opinion are used to develop classification systems and outcome measures. The developed scale requires further validation testing but is available for clinical trial use., Conclusions: While safety and efficacy are the primary concerns when evaluating AV access for HD, cosmesis is an important component of the ESKD patient experience. The AVACS has been designed to assess this important domain; it can be used to facilitate patient care and education about vascular access choice and maintenance. AVACS can also be used to inform future research on developing new techniques for AV access creation and maintenance, particularly as relates to AV access cosmesis., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest regarding patents or royalties, stock/stock options, or first-degree relatives with any of these relationships related to this work. No reimbursement was received for the development of the manuscript.DR, VN, MM, CR, ED, CG, TV, SH, PB, LD and patients CS, DDR, FM, and MB (see acknowledgements) received remuneration from Becton Dickinson (BD) for their participation in the Delphi process.GW, AH, and NF are employees of CRG-EVERSANA Canada Inc., which was contracted by BD to facilitate the Delphi panel process and analyze the results.EK and DC are employees of the American Association of Kidney Patients (AAKP) which was contracted by BD to advise on patient input and recruited the Patient Ambassadors.DR is a consultant for BD and Gore Medical. VN is a consultant for the NACCME – Moderator for AV Access Webcast, supported by an educational grant from Medtronic. SH is a consultant/speaker for BD, Merit Medical, Medtronic, and Gore Medical. ED is a consultant for WL Gore, Angiodynamics, and 3M/KCI. ED is a scientific advisor for Boston Scientific. TY is a consultant for BD, WL Gore and Merit Medical and a scientific advisory board member of BD and Medtronic. CK is a consultant for BD and ACI/Humacyte and advisory board member for Boston Scientific. CL is a consultant for BD, Gore, and Medtronic.Other ConflictsED, KW, and TY are authors and ED is an editor for UpToDate.

Background: Most patients starting chronic in-center hemodialysis (HD) receive conventional hemodialysis (CHD) with three sessions per week targeting specific biochemical clearance. Observational studies suggest that patients with residual kidney function can safely be treated with incremental prescriptions of HD, starting with less frequent sessions and later adjusting to thrice-weekly HD. This trial aims to show objectively that clinically matched incremental HD (CMIHD) is non-inferior to CHD in eligible patients., Methods: An unblinded, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial will be conducted across diverse healthcare systems and dialysis organizations in the USA. Adult patients initiating chronic hemodialysis (HD) at participating centers will be screened. Eligibility criteria include receipt of fewer than 18 treatments of HD and residual kidney function defined as kidney urea clearance ≥3.5 mL/min/1.73 m 2 and urine output ≥500 mL/24 h. The 1:1 randomization, stratified by site and dialysis vascular access type, assigns patients to either CMIHD (intervention group) or CHD (control group). The CMIHD group will be treated with twice-weekly HD and adjuvant pharmacologic therapy (i.e., oral loop diuretics, sodium bicarbonate, and potassium binders). The CHD group will receive thrice-weekly HD according to usual care. Throughout the study, patients undergo timed urine collection and fill out questionnaires. CMIHD will progress to thrice-weekly HD based on clinical manifestations or changes in residual kidney function. Caregivers of enrolled patients are invited to complete semi-annual questionnaires. The primary outcome is a composite of patients' all-cause death, hospitalizations, or emergency department visits at 2 years. Secondary outcomes include patient- and caregiver-reported outcomes. We aim to enroll 350 patients, which provides ≥85% power to detect an incidence rate ratio (IRR) of 0.9 between CMIHD and CHD with an IRR non-inferiority of 1.20 (α = 0.025, one-tailed test, 20% dropout rate, average of 2.06 years of HD per patient participant), and 150 caregiver participants (of enrolled patients)., Discussion: Our proposal challenges the status quo of HD care delivery. Our overarching hypothesis posits that CMIHD is non-inferior to CHD. If successful, the results will positively impact one of the highest-burdened patient populations and their caregivers., Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT05828823. Registered on 25 April 2023., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Ultrasonography is increasingly being performed by clinicians at the point of care, and nephrologists are no exception. This Core Curriculum illustrates how ultrasonography can be incorporated into clinical decision making across the spectrum of kidney disease to optimize the care nephrologists provide to patients. Sonography is valuable in outpatient and inpatient settings for the diagnosis and management of acute and chronic kidney disease, evaluation of cystic disease, urinary obstruction, pain, hematuria, proteinuria, assessment of volume status, and in providing guidance for kidney biopsy. As kidney disease advances, ultrasound is useful in the placement and maintenance of temporary and permanent access for dialysis. After kidney transplantation, ultrasonography is critical for evaluation of allograft dysfunction and for biopsies. Sonography skills expedite patient care and enhance the practice of nephrology and are relatively easily acquired with training. It is our hope that this curriculum will encourage nephrologists to learn and apply this valuable skill., (Copyright © 2023 National Kidney Foundation, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)