Outcomes of arteriovenous graft vs. fistula for haemodialysis access in the elderly: A systematic review and meta‑analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The impact of the type of vascular access on the outcomes in the elderly haemodialysis patients is still unclear. The goal of the present study was to compare survival outcomes in elderly haemodialysis patients who received either arteriovenous graft (AVG) or arteriovenous fistula (AVF). A systematic literature search was performed in EMBASE, Cochrane, MEDLINE, ScienceDirect and Google Scholar databases for papers published from January 1954 until January 2022. Risk of bias in the selected publications was assessed by Newcastle Ottawa scale or Cochrane risk of bias tool depending on the study design. Meta‑analysis was carried out using the random‑effects model. Data were reported as pooled odds ratio (OR) or hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). A total of 12 studies were included in the analysis. The majority of the studies had poor quality. Elderly patients receiving AVG had significantly worse survival rate compared with patients that received AVF for the haemodialysis access, with a pooled HR of 1.38 (95% CI, 1.24‑1.53; I2=79.9%). Pooled HR for access survival was 1.60 (95% CI, 1.54‑1.66; I2=0%). Pooled OR for primary patency rate, maturation failure and infections were 1.81 (95% CI, 0.73‑4.49; I2=79.2%), 0.33 (95% CI, 0.12‑0.91; I2=70.4%) and 9.74 (95% CI, 2.60‑36.49; I2=52.4%), respectively. These results suggested that in elderly patients undergoing haemodialysis, AVG was associated with reduced overall survival and access survival, and higher infection rate, compared with AVF. Notably, AVG was also associated with a lower risk of maturation failure, presenting a potential advantage in specific patient populations (study registration: PROSPERO, no. CRD42022313199).
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| 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".