medigraphic.com
Órgano Oficial de la Sociedad Mexicana de Angiología y Cirugía Vascular

2012, Number 1

<< Back Next >>

Rev Mex Angiol 2012; 40 (1)

Pacientes en hemodiálisis crónica: reporte de patrones de práctica

Garcidueñas-Briceño CM, Enríquez-Vega E, Rodríguez-Jiménez ÓA

Language: Spanish
References: 23
Page: 26-32
PDF size: 179.45 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objectives: a) To determine practice patterns in the management of vascular access in patients currently on chronic HD, b) Whether practice patterns are agree to international standards.
Material and methods: Transversal, descriptive, observational study. Was conducted in the Hemodialysis Service of Centro Médico Nacional La Raza. We included patients over 16 years, diagnosed with CKD that were in HD at our hospital. Data were gathered relating to the patient’s medical history including kidney failure and vascular access.
Results: We included 66 patients, 36 men and 30 women, average age 38 years. With an average of 72 months from diagnosis of CKD. 56.1% started on peritoneal dialysis and 43.9% on hemodialysis as replacement therapy of renal function. One patient started on hemodialysis with an arteriovenous fistulae, the rest started with a central venous catheter as vascular access, with average of its use of 9.3 months. Currently 26 (39.4%) have an autologous arteriovenous fistulae with an average use of 33 months. We found no factors significantly associated with the type of current vascular access except months of replacement therapy (p = 0.036) and hemodialysis (p ‹ 0.001).
Conclusions: This study shows that the practice patterns of patients with chronic renal failure in our hospital are far from optimal management established by international guidelines.


REFERENCES

  1. Coresh J, Selvin E, Stevens LA, Manzi J, Kusek JW, Eggers P, et al. Prevalence of chronic kidney disease in the United States. JAMA 2007; 298: 2038-47.

  2. Feldman HI, Held PJ, Hutchinson JT, et al. Hemodialysis vascular access morbidity in the United States. Kidney Int 1993; 43: 1091–6.

  3. Feldman HI, Kobrin S, Wasserstein A. Hemodialysis vascular access morbidity. J Am Soc Nephrol 1996; 7: 523-35.

  4. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services: 2004 Annual Report. End-Stage Renal Disease Clinical Performance Measures Project. Baltimore, MD, Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Center for Beneficiary Choices, 2004.

  5. Reddan D, Klassen P, Frankenfield DL, Szczech L, Schwab S, Coladonato J, et al. National profile of practice patterns for hemodialysis vascular access in the United States. J Am Soc Nephrol 2002; 13: 2117–24.

  6. Pisoni RL, Young EW, Dykstra DM, Greenwood RN, Hecking E, Gillespie B, et al. Vascular access use in Europe and the United States: Results from the DOPPS. Kidney Int 2002; 61: 305-16.

  7. Schwab SJ, Beathard G. The hemodialysis catheter conundrum: hate living with them, but can’t live without them. Kidney Int 1999; 56: 1-17.

  8. Fan PY, Schwab SJ. Vascular access: Concepts for the 1990s [Editorial]. J Am Soc Nephrol 1992; 3: 1-11.

  9. Hernandez D, Diaz F, Rufino M, Lorenzo V, Perez T, Rodriguez A, et al. Subclavian vascular access stenosis in dialysis patients: Natural history and risk factors. J Am Soc Nephrol 1998; 9: 1507-10.

  10. Twardowski ZJ. Percutaneous blood access for hemodialysis. Semin Dial 1995; 8: 175-86.

  11. National Kidney Foundation. KDOQI guidelines. Available from: http://www.kidney.org/professionals/KDOQI/ guideline_upHD_PD_VA/index.htm [Accessed: September 2009].

  12. National Kidney Foundation’s KDOQI 2006 Vascular Access Guidelines. Am J Kidney Disease 2006; 48(Suppl. 1): S177-S322.

  13. Arteriovenous Fistula First Breakthrough Coalition. Available from: http://www.fistulafirst.org [Accessed: January 1, 2009].

  14. The Renal Association Clinical Practice Guidelines. Availble from: http://www.renal.org/guidelines/module3a.html #VascularAccess [Accessed: September 2009].

  15. Jindal K, Chan CT, Deziel C, Hirsch D, Soroka SD, Tonelli M, et al. Hemodialysis clinical practice guidelines for the Canadian Society of Nephrology. J Am Soc Nephrol 2006; 17(3 Suppl. 1): S1-S27.

  16. CARI: Caring for Australians With Renal Impairment. Available from: http://www.cari.org.au/dialysis_va_005_ pub.php [Accessed: September 2009).

  17. Pisoni RL, Young EW, Dykstra DM, et al. Vascular access use in Europe and the United States: results from the DOPPS. Kidney Int 2002; 61: 305-16.

  18. Roubicek C, Brunet P, Huiart L, et al. Timing of nephrology referral: Influence on mortality and morbidity. Am J Kidney Dis 2000; 36: 35-41.

  19. Wauters JP, Bosson JL, Forneris G, Turc-Baron C, Golshayan D, Paternoster G, et al; Diamant Alpin Collaborative Dialysis Study Group. Patient referral is influenced by the dialysis center structure in the Diamant Alpin Dialysis cohort study. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2004; 19: 2341-6.

  20. Khan IH, Catto GRD, Edward N, Macleod AM. Chronic renal failure: factors influencing nephrology referral. Q J Med 1994; 87(9): 559-64.

  21. Winkelmayer WC, Glynn RJ, Levin R, Owen WF Jr, Avorn J. Determinants of delayed nephrologist referral in patients with chronic kidney disease. Am J Kidney Dis 2001; 38: 1178-84.

  22. Levin A. Consequences of late referral on patient outcomes. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2000; 15(Suppl. 3): 8-13.

  23. Roderick P, Jones C, Tomson C, Mason J. Late referral for dialysis: improving the management of chronic renal disease. Q J Med 2002; 95: 363-70.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com