Introduction: It is assumed that identification and correction of asymptomatic stenoses in the vascular access circuit will prevent thrombosis that would require urgent intervention to continue... Show moreIntroduction: It is assumed that identification and correction of asymptomatic stenoses in the vascular access circuit will prevent thrombosis that would require urgent intervention to continue hemodialysis treatment. However, the evidence base for this assumption is limited. Recent international clinical practice guidelines reach different conclusions on the use of surveillance for vascular access flow dysfunction and recommend further research to inform clinical practice.Methods: The FLOW trial is a double-blind, multicenter, randomized controlled trial with a 1:1 individual participant treatment allocation ratio over two study arms. In the intervention group, only symptomatic vascular access stenoses detected by clinical monitoring are treated, whereas in the comparison group asymptomatic stenoses detected by surveillance using monthly dilution flow measurements are treated as well. Hemodialysis patients with a functional arteriovenous vascular access are enrolled. The primary outcome is the access-related intervention rate that will be analyzed using a general linear model with Poisson distribution. Secondary outcomes include patient satisfaction, access-related serious adverse events, and quality of the surveillance process. A cost effectiveness analysis and budget impact analysis will also be conducted. The study requires 828 patient-years of follow-up in 417 participants to detect a difference of 0.25 access-related interventions per year between study groups.Discussion: As one of the largest randomized controlled trials assessing the clinical impact of vascular access surveillance using a strong double-blinded study design, we believe the FLOW trial will provide much-needed evidence to improve vascular access care for hemodialysis patients. Show less
Karthaus, E.G.; Tong, T.M.L.; Vahl, A.; Hamming, J.F.; Akker, L.H. van den; Akker, P.J. van den; ... ; Vos 2019
Objective: The aim of this was to analyze differences between saccularshaped abdominal aortic aneurysms (SaAAAs) and fusiform abdominal aortic aneurysms (FuAAAs) regarding patient characteristics,... Show moreObjective: The aim of this was to analyze differences between saccularshaped abdominal aortic aneurysms (SaAAAs) and fusiform abdominal aortic aneurysms (FuAAAs) regarding patient characteristics, treatment, and outcome, to advise a threshold for intervention for SaAAAs.Background: Based on the assumption that SaAAAs are more prone to rupture, guidelines suggest early elective treatment. However, little is known about the natural history of SaAAAs and the threshold for intervention is not substantiated.Methods: Observational study including primary repairs of degenerative AAAs in the Netherlands between 2016 and 2018 in which the shape was registered, registered in the Dutch Surgical Aneurysm Audit (DSAA). Patients were stratified by urgency of surgery; elective versus acute (symptomatic/ruptured). Patient characteristics, treatment, and outcome were compared between SaAAAs and FuAAAs.Results: A total of 7659 primary AAA-patients were included, 6.1% (n = 471) SaAAAs and 93.9% (n = 7188) FuAAAs. There were 5945 elective patients (6.5% SaAAA) and 1714 acute (4.8% SaAAA). Acute SaAAApatients were more often female (28.9% vs 17.2%, P = 0.007) compared with acute FuAAA-patients. SaAAAs had smaller diameters than FuAAAs, in elective (53.0mm vs 61 mm, P = 0.000) and acute (68mm vs 75 mm, P = 0.002) patients, even after adjusting for sex. In addition, 25.2% of acute SaAAA-patients presented with diameters <55mm and 8.4% <45 mm, versus 8.1% and 0.6% of acute FuAAA-patients (P = 0.000). Postoperative outcomes did not significantly differ between shapes in both elective and acute patients.Conclusions: SaAAAs become acute at smaller diameters than FuAAAs in DSAA patients. This study therefore supports the current idea that SaAAAs should be electively treated at smaller diameters than FuAAAs. The exact diameter threshold for elective treatment of SaAAAs is difficult to determine, but a diameter of 45mm seems to be an acceptable threshold. Show less
The continuing shortage of kidneys for transplantation requires major efforts to expand the donor pool. Donation after cardiac death (DCD) increases the number of available kidneys, but it is... Show moreThe continuing shortage of kidneys for transplantation requires major efforts to expand the donor pool. Donation after cardiac death (DCD) increases the number of available kidneys, but it is unknown whether patients who receive a DCD kidney live longer than patients who remain on dialysis and wait for a conventional kidney from a brain-dead donor (DBD). This observational cohort study included all 2575 patients who were registered on the Dutch waiting list for a first kidney transplant between January 1, 1999, and December 31, 2004. From listing until the earliest of death, living-donor kidney transplantation, or December 31, 2005, 459 patients received a DCD transplant and 680 patients received a DBD transplant. Graft failure during the first 3 months after transplantation was twice as likely for DCD kidneys than DBD kidneys (12 versus 6.3%; P = 0.001). Standard-criteria DCD transplantation associated with a 56% reduced risk for mortality (hazard ratio 0.44; 95% confidence interval 0.24 to 0.80) compared with continuing on dialysis and awaiting a standard-criteria DBD kidney. This reduction in mortality translates into 2.4-month additional expected lifetime during the first 4 years after transplantation for recipients of DCD kidneys compared with patients who await a DBD kidney. In summary, standard-criteria DCD kidney transplantation associates with increased survival of patients who have ESRD and are on the transplant waiting list. Show less
