Arteriovenous fistulas (AVF) improve survival and morbidity for most haemodialysis (HD) patients. Are they better for all patients? In the enthusiastic pursuit of AVFs for all, concerns have been raised regarding high primary AVF failure rates, continued high incident central venous catheter (CVC) use in some countries, and the limited life expectancy of some HD patients. “Fistula first” is changing to “catheter last”. The focus must be on decreasing AVF failure to mature and decreasing incident CVC use. An optimal outcome should be sought for each individual patient, and multiple failed attempts at AVF creation avoided.

In British Columbia, multidisciplinary predialysis clinics encourage patients to consider independent modalities of renal replacement therapy (RRT) such as peritoneal dialysis (PD) ‘first’. Despite up to 50% of patients choosing PD, PD incidence rates are ∼30%. We explored the relationship between predialysis RRT choice and arteriovenous fistula (AVF) creation prior to hemodialysis (HD) start with particular focus on the group of patients who despite PD choice actually commence HD, and thus may contribute to ‘suboptimal’ HD starts without AVF creation. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all patients starting dialysis between 31 December, 2006 and 31 December 2008 in the province of British Columbia. Inclusion criteria were >3 months predialysis nephrology follow-up, at least one predialysis RRT education session and maintenance on dialysis for a minimum of 3 months (to ensure chronic dialysis). Patients with any prior history of RRT were excluded. There were 508 patients included in the study: 127 (25%) patients chose HD, 114 (22%) PD, 13 (3%) pre-emptive transplant, 5 (1%) conservative management and 249 (49%) had no documented modality decision. Of those who chose HD, 94% commenced HD. For those who chose PD, 64% commenced PD and 36% HD. In the undecided group, 68% started HD and 32% PD. For those patients who chose PD predialysis, the presence of cardiovascular disease [odds ratio (OR) 2.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02–5.43] and lower serum albumin levels (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.86–0.98) were associated with failure to commence PD. Predialysis AVF creation rates were 79% of those who chose and started HD, 39% of those who chose PD but started HD and 50% of those in the undecided group who commenced HD. AVF creation rates prior to HD start were lower in those patients with no documented dialysis modality choice and in those who failed to commence PD. Cardiovascular disease and lower serum albumin levels were associated with failure to start PD. Further work to ensure the efficacy of RRT modality choice pathway and to better predict those patients who will fail to commence PD is necessary, so that dialysis start can be ‘optimized’ with AVF creation in high-risk groups.

Background: Key anatomical factors mean that individuals needing arteriovenous access are unique and have different possibilities for fistula creation. The aim of this article is to describe a new classification system for all patients needing haemodialysis vascular access in the upper extremity with the purpose to simplify sharing the information about suitability for surgical access creation depending on vascular anatomy. Methods: According to the patient’s vascular anatomy in right and left superior extremities, patients were separated into three arteriovenous access stages (AVAS). The AVAS was validated by three blinded observers using a sample of 70 upper limb arteriovenous maps that were performed using ultrasound on patients referred for vascular access assessment. A sample size calculation was performed and calculated that for three observers, a minimum of 67 maps were required to confirm significant agreement at a Kappa value of 0.9 (95% confidence interval 0.75–0.99). Results: The Kappa value for inter-rater reliability using Fleiss’ Kappa coefficient was 0.94 and all patients fitted into the AVAS classification system. Conclusion: The AVAS classification system is a simplified way to share information about vascular access options based on a patient’s vascular anatomy with high inter-rater reliability.

Background: Whether patients commence haemodialysis with a central venous catheter (CVC), or an arteriovenous fistula (AVF) is used to audit the quality of a vascular access service. However, this crude metric of measurement can miss the increasing nuance and complexity of vascular access planning. We aimed to understand whether commencing haemodialysis with a CVC represented an ‘optimal’ or ‘suboptimal’ outcome and how this could influence the assessment of a vascular access service. Methods: From a prospective clinical database, patients known to nephrology >90 days prior to initiating haemodialysis as first-ever renal replacement therapy (2011–2020) from a single centre were included. Results: A total of 158/254 patients started haemodialysis with a CVC, and 96 with arteriovenous fistula. For 91 patients, the CVC was deemed ‘optimal’ care due to factors such as unpredictable deterioration in renal function (n = 41) and inadequate veins for AVF creation (n = 24). For 67 patients, the CVC was ‘suboptimal’ due to factors such as no/late referral to access assessment (n = 25) and delays in the AVF creation pathway (n = 13). There was no difference in mean survival between the AVF and ‘suboptimal’ groups (2.53 vs. 2.21 years, p = 0.31). There was a survival difference between AVF versus CVC (2.53 vs. 1.97 years, p = 0.002) and ‘suboptimal’ versus ‘optimal’ CVC cohorts (2.21 vs. 1.40 years, p = 0.16). Conclusions: Understanding whether a CVC is ‘optimal’ or ‘suboptimal’ allows a more nuanced analysis of service provision. High mortality in the ‘optimal’ group suggests a frailer cohort where CVC is potentially the best care. Studying ‘suboptimal’ CVC starts helps identify practice and system issues preventing ‘optimal’ care.