Arteriovenous access creation and hazards of hospitalization and death in patients starting hemodialysis

Le résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: Recent evidence suggests an overestimation of the benefits associated with arteriovenous (AV) fistula versus graft in certain populations. We assessed hazards of all-cause and cause-specific hospitalization and death associated with AV access type in patients who started hemodialysis with a catheter in France, overall and by subgroups of age, sex and comorbidities. METHODS: We performed a target trial emulation including patients who initiated hemodialysis with a catheter from 2010 through 2018 and were followed by the REIN Registry. We identified first-created fistula or graft through the French national health-administrative database. We used joint frailty models to deal with recurrent hospitalizations and potential informative censoring by death, and inverse probability weighting to account for confounding. RESULTS: From the 18 800 patients included (mean age 68 ± 15 years, 35% women), 5% underwent AV graft creation first. The weighted hazard ratio (wHR) of all-cause hospitalization associated with graft was 1.08 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 1.15], that of vascular access-related hospitalization was 1.43 (95% CI 1.32 to 1.55), and those of cardiovascular- and infection-related hospitalizations were 1.14 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.26) and 1.11 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.28), respectively. Results were consistent for most subgroups, except that the highest hazard of all-cause, cardiovascular- and infection-related hospitalizations with graft was blunted in patients with comorbidities (i.e. diabetes, wHR 1.01, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.10; 1.10, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.26; and 0.94, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.12, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In patients starting hemodialysis with a catheter, AV graft creation is associated with increased hazard of vascular access-related hospitalizations compared with fistula. This may not be the case for death or other causes of hospitalization.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.