International Differences in the Location and Use of Arteriovenous Accesses Created for Hemodialysis: Results From the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BackgroundVascular access practice is strongly associated with clinical outcomes. There is substantial international variation in the use of arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs) and grafts (AVGs), as well as AVF maturation time and location.Study DesignProspective cohort study.Setting & ParticipantsHemodialysis patients participating in the prospective Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS) from the United States, Japan, and Europe/ANZ (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand), including 3,850 patients receiving 4,247 new AVFs and 842 patients receiving 1,129 new AVGs in 2009 to 2015. AVF location trends were based on 38,868 AVFs recorded in DOPPS 1 to 5 cross-sections (1996-2015).PredictorsDemographics, comorbid conditions, dialysis vintage, body mass index, facility percentage AVF use, median blood flow rate, and AVF location.OutcomesAVF location; successful AVF/AVG use (≥30 days of continuous use); time-to-first successful AVF/AVG use (maturation).ResultsDuring DOPPS 1 to 5, the percentage of AVFs created in the lower arm was consistently ≥93% in Japan and 65% to 77% in Europe/ANZ, but in the United States, this value declined from 70% (DOPPS 1) to 32% (DOPPS 5). Patient characteristics associated with AVF location differed by region. Successful AVF use was 87% in Japan, 67% in Europe/ANZ, and 64% in the United States, whereas successful AVG use was 86%, 75%, and 78%, respectively. Successful AVF use was greater for upper- versus lower-arm AVFs in the United States, with little difference in Europe/ANZ and the opposite pattern in Japan. Median time until first successful AVF use was 10 days in Japan, 46 days in Europe/ANZ, and 82 days in United States; until first successful AVG use: 6, 24, and 29 days, respectively.LimitationsPotential measurement error related to chart data abstraction in multiple hemodialysis facilities.ConclusionsLarge international differences exist in AVF location, predictors of AVF location, successful use of AVFs, and time to first AVF/AVG use, challenging what constitutes best practice. The large US shift from lower- to upper-arm AVFs raises serious concerns about long-term health implications for some patients and how policies and practices aimed at increasing AVF use have affected AVF placement location. Vascular access practice is strongly associated with clinical outcomes. There is substantial international variation in the use of arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs) and grafts (AVGs), as well as AVF maturation time and location. Prospective cohort study. Hemodialysis patients participating in the prospective Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS) from the United States, Japan, and Europe/ANZ (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand), including 3,850 patients receiving 4,247 new AVFs and 842 patients receiving 1,129 new AVGs in 2009 to 2015. AVF location trends were based on 38,868 AVFs recorded in DOPPS 1 to 5 cross-sections (1996-2015). Demographics, comorbid conditions, dialysis vintage, body mass index, facility percentage AVF use, median blood flow rate, and AVF location. AVF location; successful AVF/AVG use (≥30 days of continuous use); time-to-first successful AVF/AVG use (maturation). During DOPPS 1 to 5, the percentage of AVFs created in the lower arm was consistently ≥93% in Japan and 65% to 77% in Europe/ANZ, but in the United States, this value declined from 70% (DOPPS 1) to 32% (DOPPS 5). Patient characteristics associated with AVF location differed by region. Successful AVF use was 87% in Japan, 67% in Europe/ANZ, and 64% in the United States, whereas successful AVG use was 86%, 75%, and 78%, respectively. Successful AVF use was greater for upper- versus lower-arm AVFs in the United States, with little difference in Europe/ANZ and the opposite pattern in Japan. Median time until first successful AVF use was 10 days in Japan, 46 days in Europe/ANZ, and 82 days in United States; until first successful AVG use: 6, 24, and 29 days, respectively. Potential measurement error related to chart data abstraction in multiple hemodialysis facilities. Large international differences exist in AVF location, predictors of AVF location, successful use of AVFs, and time to first AVF/AVG use, challenging what constitutes best practice. The large US shift from lower- to upper-arm AVFs raises serious concerns about long-term health implications for some patients and how policies and practices aimed at increasing AVF use have affected AVF placement location.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,017 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».