Identified lesions
Number
Anastomosis stenosis, arterial (ASA)
38
Anastomosis stenosis, venous (ASV)
15
Stenosis, venous (SV)
20
Accessory tributary (AT)
12
Central venous stenosis (CVS)
9
Arterial stenosis (AS)
4
Diffuse small veins
3
AT with ASV
24
AT with SV
6
AT with ASV and SV
4
ASV with SV
6
- A.
Pre–surgery evaluation: Major evaluation points are discussed in Tables 20.2 and 20.3. Selection of artery that has good flow, is not the only source of blood to distal parts, and is free of significant disease must be determined before the surgery (Table 20.2). Similarly, the vein should be free of clots and stenosis and be of sufficient size (Table 20.3). A careful vascular mapping and physical examination usually ensure this.
Table 20.2
Elements of preoperative assessment
History:
Gender, age, comorbid conditions, such as peripheral vascular disease
Diabetes mellitus, heart failure, infections, etc.
Past history such as failed access, PICCs, cardiovascular surgery
Defibrillators, pacemakers, injury, etc.
Examination:
Local area, cardiovascular, neuromuscular, etc.
Arterial: flow evaluation, pulse, Allen test, etc.
Venous: clots, stenosis, occlusion, tributaries, distensibility size evaluation
With and without tourniquet
Diagnostic tests:
Ultrasonic, Doppler examination:
Vein mapping, potential location of good fistula
Lumen diameter: minimum arterial lumen 1.5 or 2 mm
Minimum venous diameter 2–4 mm
Other tests:
Doppler transducer pressure, oximetry, digital pressure, changes in arterial wave form with fist clenching, flow estimation, etc.
Arteriography only if necessary, avoiding the use of contrast
Table 20.3
Predictors of successful AV access
Vein diameter (mm)
Blood flow (ml/min)
Success (%)
>4
>500
95
<4
<500
33
>4
<500
60
<4
>500
60
- B.
Post–surgery evaluation:
- (a)
Basic information: The nephrologist needs to know the date the access (particularly AVF) was created, exact anatomical location and names of the vessels used, direction of blood flow, and any significant pre-surgery or intra-surgery problems that were noted.
- (b)
Inflow problems: The most common cause is juxta-anastomosis stenosis (Fig. 20.1a), although stenosis in the body of fistula can also be present (Fig. 20.1b). As discussed below in detail, a good examination including palpation, auscultation, and augmentation by digital occlusion helps in delineating these common problems. If an inflow problem is detected early, appropriate intervention can be taken, leading to a functional AVF.
Fig. 20.1
(a) Showing Artery, anastomosis and body of the fistula. Juxta-anastomosis stenosis is a narrowing immediately after anastomosis. (b) Showing stenosis in the body of fistula
- (c)
Outflow problems: Presence of a prominent tributary diverting blood from the main fistula will prevent maturation of the AVF. Figure 20.2 and the discussion below further describes the problem and technique to diagnose it.
Fig. 20.2
Venous tributary draining blood away from the main fistula. Digital occlusion at point A, the thrill will disappear at point B. Pressure at point C, the thrill will appear at point B, suggesting Large flow in the collateral vein. Tying off collateral vein should Improve the fistula flow
- (a)
The Secondary (Late) Failure
Secondary failure is defined as failure of a permanent access after it has been successfully used for dialysis, according to some investigators, for six or more dialysis treatments. Secondary failure of access contributes to under-dialysis, increased morbidity, and even mortality. In addition, the cost of care is also quite high, estimated to be in billions of dollars annually. Diagnosing an access problem and taking corrective measures in a timely fashion appear to be effective in reducing the above problems. Routine monitoring and surveillance are necessary in order to predict impending failure so that problems can be corrected in a timely fashion in order to (a) prevent under-dialysis, (b) prevent other complications such as infection, and (c) preserve the access vein. Thus, the importance of monitoring and surveillance cannot be emphasized enough. In the United States, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMMS) mandates that all dialysis providers must have a well-defined protocol of successful surveillance and monitoring of access with “…strategies including device-based methods such as access flow measurements, direct or derived static venous pressure ratios, duplex ultrasound, etc.” [5]. While both monitoring and surveillance have the same goal of evaluation of an access and detection of impending problem and are complimentary, monitoring usually refers to evaluation of vascular access by physical examination, and surveillance is an ongoing access assessment by special tests and diagnostic procedures.
The most common complications that threaten AVF and AVG are thrombosis and stenosis; one potentially can lead to the other. A stenosed access is likely to develop clots; however, it is unclear whether repeated clot formation is the major contributor to stenosis. Most of monitoring and surveillance is focused on the early detection of compromised blood flow caused by stenosis or thrombosis. The major part of discussion is thus focused on the problem of stenosis and thrombosis with brief discussion about other complications in the following sections.
Basic Physics of Vascular Access
Basic understanding of blood flow and pressure dynamics in the permanent access is necessary for a physician to perform an appropriate examination, properly analyze the data, and establish the correct diagnosis. The flow and pressures are different in AVF from that encountered in AVG. Hemodialysis access is created by connecting a high-flow and high-pressure arterial conduit to a low-flow and low-pressure venous conduit either directly, the AVF, or through a tube of synthetic or biological material, the AVG. In an AVF, blood flows rapidly and under high pressure into the vein, pressure being very high adjacent to the anastomosis. Veins are capable of expanding, unlike grafts, and the dilatation leads to reduced resistance and the rapid dissipation of pressure further downstream (Fig. 20.3). However, the synthetic tube for AVG is not distensible, and resistance inside remains high, declining very slowly to the venous pressure at the venous anastomosis. AVG require higher blood flow rates, such as 1 L or so per minute, in order to remain patent. In contrast, AVF are functional even at lower blood flow rates of 500 ml/min or lower (even down to 200 ml/min). The connection of a high-pressure system to a low-pressure system causes turbulent flow and eddy currents, felt as a thrill and auscultated as bruit. In well-functioning access, the thrill/bruit is present through the entire AVF and AVG and felt both during systole and diastole. The location, intensity, and timing of the thrill and bruit are affected by the flow rates and development of stenosis and/or thrombosis, and this information is used in the diagnosis of any developing problems.
Fig. 20.3
AVF and AVG connected to dialysis machine (top figures). Pressure profile in AVF & AVG (bottom figures)
Monitoring of Vascular Access
Physical Examination
A proper physical examination (PE) is an invaluable tool in discovering emerging problems in a timely fashion, thus preventing serious complications, potential loss, and poor outcomes. Though subjective in nature, with experience this can be performed quickly and accurately and is considered a critical part of patient care. Studies have shown that the sensitivity of a good PE in diagnosing AVF stenosis ranges from 70 to 100 % and specificity 68–93 % (Table 20.4). Unfortunately, experience has shown that majority of nephrologists (as many as over >80 %) miss abnormal physical findings, particularly in AVF. Like any PE, the three elements include inspection, palpation, and auscultation. Basic knowledge of blood flow dynamics as discussed above is helpful in understanding the steps of PE and evaluation of findings. Most of the discussion will focus on AVF, but similar principles apply for AVG. Elements of physical examination and findings are summarized in Table 20.5.
Table 20.4
Accuracy of physical examination in detection of AVF stenosis in five prospective studies
Authors | Number | Location of lesion | Sensitivity | Specificity (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Asif et al. [8] | 142 | Inflow | 85 | 71 |
Outflow | 92 | 86 | ||
Leon et al. [9] | 45 | Inflow | 100 | 78 |
Outflow | 76 | 68 | ||
Campos et al. [10] | 84 | Overall | 96 | 76 |
Tessitore et al. [11] | 119 | Inflow | 70 | 76 |
Outflow | 75 | 93 | ||
Coentrao et al. [12] | 177 | Inflow | 98 | 88 |
Outflow | 97 | 92 |
Table 20.5
Diagnostic elements of the physical examination used in the assessment of autogenous arteriovenous fistula dysfunction
Thrill | Pulse | Arm elevation test | Pulse augmentation test | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Inflow stenosis | Weak, systolic | Weak | Excessive collapse | Weak |
Outflow stenosis | ||||
Body of fistula | Systolic | Strong | No partial vein collapse | n.a. |
Cephalic arch stenosis
Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channelFull access? Get Clinical TreeGet Clinical Tree app for offline access |