Cargando…

Immediate access arteriovenous grafts versus tunnelled central venous catheters: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Autologous arteriovenous fistulae (AVF) are the optimal form of vascular access for haemodialysis. AVFs typically require 6 to 8 weeks to “mature” from the time of surgery before they can be cannulated. Patients with end-stage renal disease needing urgent vascular access therefore tradit...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Aitken, Emma, Geddes, Colin, Thomson, Pete, Kasthuri, Ram, Chandramohan, Mohan, Berry, Colin, Kingsmore, David
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4343055/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25885054
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-015-0556-x
_version_ 1782359353319227392
author Aitken, Emma
Geddes, Colin
Thomson, Pete
Kasthuri, Ram
Chandramohan, Mohan
Berry, Colin
Kingsmore, David
author_facet Aitken, Emma
Geddes, Colin
Thomson, Pete
Kasthuri, Ram
Chandramohan, Mohan
Berry, Colin
Kingsmore, David
author_sort Aitken, Emma
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Autologous arteriovenous fistulae (AVF) are the optimal form of vascular access for haemodialysis. AVFs typically require 6 to 8 weeks to “mature” from the time of surgery before they can be cannulated. Patients with end-stage renal disease needing urgent vascular access therefore traditionally require insertion of a tunnelled central venous catheter (TCVC). TCVCs are associated with high infection rates and central venous stenosis. Early cannulation synthetic arteriovenous grafts (ecAVG) provide a novel alternative to TCVCs, permitting rapid access to the bloodstream and immediate needling for haemodialysis. Published rates of infection in small series are low. The aim of this study is to compare whether TCVC ± AVF or ecAVG ± AVF provide a better strategy for managing patients requiring immediate vascular access for haemodialysis. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a prospective randomised controlled trial comparing the strategy of TCVC ± AVF to ecAVG ± AVF. Patients requiring urgent vascular access will receive a study information sheet and written consent will be obtained. Patients will be randomised to receive either: (i) TCVC (and native AVF if this is anatomically possible) or (ii) ecAVG (± AVF). 118 patients will be recruited. The primary outcome is systemic bacteraemia at 6 months. Secondary outcomes include culture-proven bacteraemia rates at 1 year and 2 years; primary and secondary patency rates at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months; stenoses; re-intervention rates; re-admission rate; mortality and quality of life. Additionally, treatment delays, impact on service provision and cost-effectiveness will be evaluated. DISCUSSION: This is the first randomised controlled trial comparing TCVC to ecAVG for patients requiring urgent vascular access for haemodialysis. The complications of TCVC are considered an unfortunate necessity in patients requiring urgent haemodialysis who do not have autologous vascular access. If this study demonstrates that ecAVGs provide a safe and practical alternative to TCVC, this could instigate a paradigm shift in nephrology thinking and access planning. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study has been approved by the West of Scotland Research Ethics Committee 4 (reference no. 13/WS/0087, 28 August 2013) and is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Register (reference no. ISRCTN80588541, 27 May 2014).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4343055
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-43430552015-02-28 Immediate access arteriovenous grafts versus tunnelled central venous catheters: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial Aitken, Emma Geddes, Colin Thomson, Pete Kasthuri, Ram Chandramohan, Mohan Berry, Colin Kingsmore, David Trials Study Protocol BACKGROUND: Autologous arteriovenous fistulae (AVF) are the optimal form of vascular access for haemodialysis. AVFs typically require 6 to 8 weeks to “mature” from the time of surgery before they can be cannulated. Patients with end-stage renal disease needing urgent vascular access therefore traditionally require insertion of a tunnelled central venous catheter (TCVC). TCVCs are associated with high infection rates and central venous stenosis. Early cannulation synthetic arteriovenous grafts (ecAVG) provide a novel alternative to TCVCs, permitting rapid access to the bloodstream and immediate needling for haemodialysis. Published rates of infection in small series are low. The aim of this study is to compare whether TCVC ± AVF or ecAVG ± AVF provide a better strategy for managing patients requiring immediate vascular access for haemodialysis. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a prospective randomised controlled trial comparing the strategy of TCVC ± AVF to ecAVG ± AVF. Patients requiring urgent vascular access will receive a study information sheet and written consent will be obtained. Patients will be randomised to receive either: (i) TCVC (and native AVF if this is anatomically possible) or (ii) ecAVG (± AVF). 118 patients will be recruited. The primary outcome is systemic bacteraemia at 6 months. Secondary outcomes include culture-proven bacteraemia rates at 1 year and 2 years; primary and secondary patency rates at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months; stenoses; re-intervention rates; re-admission rate; mortality and quality of life. Additionally, treatment delays, impact on service provision and cost-effectiveness will be evaluated. DISCUSSION: This is the first randomised controlled trial comparing TCVC to ecAVG for patients requiring urgent vascular access for haemodialysis. The complications of TCVC are considered an unfortunate necessity in patients requiring urgent haemodialysis who do not have autologous vascular access. If this study demonstrates that ecAVGs provide a safe and practical alternative to TCVC, this could instigate a paradigm shift in nephrology thinking and access planning. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study has been approved by the West of Scotland Research Ethics Committee 4 (reference no. 13/WS/0087, 28 August 2013) and is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Register (reference no. ISRCTN80588541, 27 May 2014). BioMed Central 2015-02-08 /pmc/articles/PMC4343055/ /pubmed/25885054 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-015-0556-x Text en © Aitken et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2015 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Study Protocol
Aitken, Emma
Geddes, Colin
Thomson, Pete
Kasthuri, Ram
Chandramohan, Mohan
Berry, Colin
Kingsmore, David
Immediate access arteriovenous grafts versus tunnelled central venous catheters: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
title Immediate access arteriovenous grafts versus tunnelled central venous catheters: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
title_full Immediate access arteriovenous grafts versus tunnelled central venous catheters: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
title_fullStr Immediate access arteriovenous grafts versus tunnelled central venous catheters: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
title_full_unstemmed Immediate access arteriovenous grafts versus tunnelled central venous catheters: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
title_short Immediate access arteriovenous grafts versus tunnelled central venous catheters: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
title_sort immediate access arteriovenous grafts versus tunnelled central venous catheters: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
topic Study Protocol
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4343055/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25885054
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-015-0556-x
work_keys_str_mv AT aitkenemma immediateaccessarteriovenousgraftsversustunnelledcentralvenouscathetersstudyprotocolforarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT geddescolin immediateaccessarteriovenousgraftsversustunnelledcentralvenouscathetersstudyprotocolforarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT thomsonpete immediateaccessarteriovenousgraftsversustunnelledcentralvenouscathetersstudyprotocolforarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT kasthuriram immediateaccessarteriovenousgraftsversustunnelledcentralvenouscathetersstudyprotocolforarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT chandramohanmohan immediateaccessarteriovenousgraftsversustunnelledcentralvenouscathetersstudyprotocolforarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT berrycolin immediateaccessarteriovenousgraftsversustunnelledcentralvenouscathetersstudyprotocolforarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT kingsmoredavid immediateaccessarteriovenousgraftsversustunnelledcentralvenouscathetersstudyprotocolforarandomisedcontrolledtrial