Use of vascular access for haemodialysis in Europe: a report from the ERA-EDTA Registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs) are actively promoted, their use at the start of haemodialysis (HD) seems to be decreasing worldwide. In this paper, we describe recent trends in incidence and prevalence of vascular access types in Europe from 2005 to 2009 and their relationship with patient characteristics and survival. METHODS: Ten European renal registries participating in the ERA-EDTA Registry provided data on incidence (n = 13,044) and/or prevalence (n = 75,715) of vascular access types. We used logistic regression to assess which factors influence the likelihood to be treated with an AVF rather than another type. RESULTS: The use of AVFs at the start of HD showed a significant decreasing trend from 42% in 2005 to 32% in 2009 (P < 0.0001), while the use of central venous catheters (CVCs) increased from 58 to 68% (P < 0.0001). A similar evolution pattern was observed for the prevalence; use of AVFs decreased from 66 to 62% and use of CVCs increased from 28 to 32%. There was a large international variation in the use of the different vascular access types. Female patients [adjusted odds ratio: 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.78-0.90] and those ≥80 years (0.77, 95% CI: 0.67-0.90) were least likely to start HD with an AVF. CONCLUSION: In Europe, there is a decreasing trend in the use of AVFs and an increasing trend in the use of CVCs at the start and after the start of HD. We cannot explain all between-country variations we found, and more research is needed to clarify how healthcare around vascular access is organized in Europe.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".