Distal hypoperfusion ischemic syndrome (DHIS), commonly referred to as hand ischemia or “steal” after dialysis access placement, occurs in 5–10% of cases when the brachial artery is used, or 10 times that of wrist arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs) using the radial artery. It is typically seen in elderly women with diabetes, and may carry severe morbidity including tissue or limb loss if not recognized and treated. Three distinct etiologies include (1) blood flow restriction to the hand from arterial occlusive disease either proximal or distal to the AV access anastomosis, (2) excess blood flow through the AV fistula conduit (true steal), and (3) lack of vascular (arterial) adaptation or collateral flow reserve (ie atherosclerosis) to the increased flow demand from the AV conduit. These three causes of steal may occur alone or in concert. The diagnosis of steal is based on an accurate history and physical examination and confirmed with tests including an arteriogram, duplex Doppler ultrasound (DDU) evaluation with finger pressures and waveform analysis. Treatment of steal includes observation of developing symptoms in mild cases. Balloon angioplasty is the appropriate intervention for an arterial stenosis. At least three distinct surgical corrective procedures exist to counteract the pathophysiology of steal. The ultimate treatment strategy depends on severity of symptoms, the extent of patient co-morbidity, and the local dialysis access technical team support and skills available.

It has been repeatedly proven that statins improve endothelial function in isolated hypercholesterolaemia but there is far less evidence in the case of combined hyperlipidaemia. Studies assessing the effects of fibrates on endothelium have been neglected. Therefore, we conducted a trial in which the effects of fenofibrate and atorvastatin monotherapy on both endothelium-dependent vascular reactivity and biochemical parameters were compared in patients with combined hyperlipidaemia. 29 otherwise healthy males (aged 47.4+/-7.8 years) with combined hyperlipidaemia (total cholesterol 7.55+/-1.20 mmol/l, triglycerides 5.41+/-4.54 mmol/l) were included into the randomised, single-blind, cross-over study to receive either 200 mg of micronised fenofibrate or 10 mg of atorvastatin daily--each of the drugs for a period of 10 weeks. Analysed biochemical parameters were as follows: serum total-, LDL- and HDL-cholesterol, apolipoproteins A-I and B, triglycerides, fibrinogen, uric acid, C-reactive protein (CRP), insulin, and homocysteine. Endothelial function was investigated by duplex Doppler ultrasonography at the brachial artery. Two indices of endothelial-dependent postischaemic changes were used - the recently introduced index of peak blood flow (PBF) representing the level of reactive hyperaemia and traditional flow-mediated dilatation (FMD). We observed a small improvement in FMD after both fenofibrate and atorvastatin (from 2.26% to 2.98% and 2.87%, respectively; NS). PBF increased from 448 ml/min to 536 ml/min after fenofibrate (P=0.04) and to 570 ml/min after atorvastatin (P=0.03). The effects of both fenofibrate and atorvastatin on endothelial function did not differ significantly (P-values of 0.82 and 0.47 for FMD and PBF, respectively). Significant correlations (P<0.01) between the changes of vascular reactivity and biochemical indices were found between FMD and CRP (r=-0.60) and between both FMD and PBF, and insulinaemia (r=-0.48 and -0.56, respectively) only during treatment with fenofibrate. Both fenofibrate and atorvastatin significantly improved endothelium-dependent vascular reactivity without mutual difference. The PBF was superior to FMD for the detection of this improvement. The beneficial effect of both drugs did not correlate with the change of lipid profile during therapy. The improvement of vascular reactivity during treatment with fenofibrate (opposed to atorvastatin) was related to the reduction of indirect marker of chronic vessel wall inflammation and of insulin resistance. The PBF was more reproducible than FMD because of considerably lower intra-subject variability.

Chronic kidney disease is associated with increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. A well-functioning vascular access is associated with improved survival and among the available types of vascular access the arterio-venous (AV) fistula is the one associated with the best outcomes. However, AV access may affect heart function and, in some patients, could worsen the clinical status. This review article focuses on the specific cardiovascular hemodynamics of dialysis patients and how it is affected by the AV access; the effects of an excessive increase in AV access flow, leading to high-output heart failure; congestive heart failure in CKD patients and the contraindications to AV access; pulmonary hypertension. In severe heart failure, peritoneal dialysis (PD) might be the better choice for cardiac health, but if contraindicated suggestions for vascular access selection are provided based on the individual clinical presentation. Management of the AV access after kidney transplantation is also addressed, considering the cardiovascular benefit of AV access ligation compared to the advantage of having a functioning AVF as backup in case of allograft failure. In PD patients, who need to switch to hemodialysis, vascular access should be created timely. The influence of AV access in patients undergoing cardiac surgery for valvular or ischemic heart disease is also addressed. Cardiovascular implantable electronic devices are increasingly implanted in dialysis patients, but when doing so, the type and location of vascular access should be considered.