Physical examination versus normalized pressure ratio for predicting outcomes of hemodialysis access interventions.

PURPOSE The ratio of intragraft venous limb pressure (VLP) to systemic pressure (S) has been proposed to help determine the endpoint of hemodialysis access interventions. It was hypothesized that physical examination of the access could be used in the same way and these techniques were compared as predictors of outcome. PATIENTS AND METHODS With use of a quality-assurance database, records from 117 hemodialysis access interventions were retrospectively reviewed. Only interventions in grafts were included. The database included physical examination (to establish thrill, thrill with slight pulsatility [TSP], pulse with slight thrill [PST], and pulse) at three locations along the graft (proximal, midportion, and distal), normalized pressure ratio calculated with S from a blood pressure cuff (S(cuff)) and S within the graft with outflow occluded (S(direct)), graft configuration and location, indication, operator, and time to next intervention (outcome of primary patency). Only procedures with complete follow-up data were included in the analysis (n = 97; declotting, n = 51; prophylactic percutaneous transluminal angioplasty [PTA], n = 46). Statistical analysis was performed with use of Cox proportional-hazards regression. RESULTS Graft configuration, location, side, VLP, S(direct), and S(cuff) did not affect outcomes. An operator effect was noted for two physicians and was adjusted for in all analyses. Pressure ratios were weak predictors of outcome (VLP/S(direct), P =.07; VLP/S(cuff), P =.08) and suggested that patency increased with increasing pressure ratio, contrary to earlier studies. Procedure type predicted outcome (declotting, median patency of 50 days; PTA, median patency of 105 days; P =.01). Thrill at distal physical examination was predictive of outcome (P =.04) and even more so when thrill and TSP combined were compared with PST and pulse combined (P =.03). Similar but less-pronounced effects were seen at midportion and proximal physical examinations. CONCLUSIONS The presence of a thrill or slightly pulsatile thrill at the distal (venous) end of a dialysis graft is the best predictor of outcome after percutaneous intervention. Based on the present study, the authors believe that physical examination of dialysis access should supplant pressure measurements as an endpoint of intervention and should serve as an essential component of quality assurance of access interventions.

[1]  B. Funaki,et al.  Using pullback pressure measurements to identify venous stenoses persisting after successful angioplasty in failing hemodialysis grafts. , 2002, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[2]  Robin D Gleed,et al.  Use of a catheter-based system to measure blood flow in hemodialysis grafts during angioplasty procedures. , 2002, Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR.

[3]  R. Agarwal,et al.  Buzz in the axilla: a new physical sign in hemodialysis forearm graft evaluation. , 2001, American journal of kidney diseases : the official journal of the National Kidney Foundation.

[4]  T A Ikizler,et al.  Vascular access blood flow monitoring reduces access morbidity and costs. , 2001, Kidney international.

[5]  D. Windus,et al.  Flow in hemodialysis grafts after angioplasty: Do radiologic criteria predict success? , 2001, Kidney international.

[6]  A. Westfall,et al.  Predictors of arteriovenous graft patency after radiologic intervention in hemodialysis patients. , 2001, American journal of kidney diseases : the official journal of the National Kidney Foundation.

[7]  S. Trerotola,et al.  Reporting standards for percutaneous interventions in dialysis access. , 1999, Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR.

[8]  S. Trerotola,et al.  Reporting standards for percutaneous interventions in dialysis access. Technology Assessment Committee. , 1999, Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR.

[9]  S. Trerotola,et al.  Treatment of thrombosed hemodialysis access grafts: Arrow-Trerotola percutaneous thrombolytic device versus pulse-spray thrombolysis. Arrow-Trerotola Percutaneous Thrombolytic Device Clinical Trial. , 1998, Radiology.

[10]  A. Besarab,et al.  Hemodynamic screening and early percutaneous intervention reduce hemodialysis access thrombosis and increase graft longevity. , 1997, Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR.

[11]  A. Roberts,et al.  Detection and treatment of dysfunctional hemodialysis access grafts: effect of a surveillance program on graft patency and the incidence of thrombosis. , 1996, Radiology.

[12]  A. Roberts,et al.  Pulse-spray pharmacomechanical thrombolysis of thrombosed hemodialysis access grafts: long-term experience and comparison of original and current techniques. , 1995, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[13]  M. Moritz,et al.  Hemodynamics of Failing Dialysis Grafts , 1993, Radiology.

[14]  M. Moritz,et al.  The Relationship between Dialysis Graft Pressure and Stenosis , 1992, Investigative radiology.

[15]  G. Beathard,et al.  Physical Examination of AV Grafts , 1992 .

[16]  D. Cox,et al.  Analysis of Survival Data. , 1985 .

[17]  N. Powe,et al.  Screening for dialysis access graft malfunction: comparison of physical examination with US. , 1996, Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR.

[18]  P. Allison Survival analysis using the SAS system : a practical guide , 1995 .

[19]  L. J. Wei,et al.  The Robust Inference for the Cox Proportional Hazards Model , 1989 .