» Articles » PMID: 23599135

Hemodialysis Patient Preference for Type of Vascular Access: Variation and Predictors Across Countries in the DOPPS

Overview
Journal J Vasc Access
Publisher Sage Publications
Date 2013 Apr 20
PMID 23599135
Citations 26
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: Catheters are associated with worse clinical outcomes than fistulas and grafts in hemodialysis (HD) patients. One potential modifier of patient vascular access (VA) use is patient preference for a particular VA type. The purpose of this study is to identify predictors of patient VA preference that could be used to improve patient care.

Methods: This study uses a cross-sectional sample of data from the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS 3, 2005-09), that includes 3815 HD patients from 224 facilities in 12 countries. Using multivariable models we measured associations between patient demographic and clinical characteristics, previous catheter use and patient preference for a catheter.

Results: Patient preference for a catheter varied across countries, ranging from 1% of HD patients in Japan and 18% in the United States, to 42% to 44% in Belgium and Canada. Preference for a catheter was positively associated with age (adjusted odds ratio per 10 years=1.14; 95% CI=1.02-1.26), female sex (OR 1.49; 95% CI=1.15-1.93), and former (OR=2.61; 95% CI=1.66-4.12) or current catheter use (OR=60.3; 95% CI=36.5-99.8); catheter preference was inversely associated with time on dialysis (OR per three years=0.90; 95% CI=0.82-0.97).

Conclusions: Considerable variation in patient VA preference was observed across countries, suggesting that patient VA preference may be influenced by sociocultural factors and thus could be modifiable. Catheter preference was greatest among current and former catheter users, suggesting that one way to influence patient VA preference may be to avoid catheter use whenever possible.

Citing Articles

A case report on the placement of a temporal dialysis catheter in the femoral artery for emergency dialysis.

Mavromatidis K, Athanasios Bakaloudis A, Skandalos I, Kalogiannidou I, Georgoulidou A Caspian J Intern Med. 2023; 14(4):755-759.

PMID: 38024169 PMC: 10646364. DOI: 10.22088/cjim.14.4.755.


Early identification of bloodstream infection in hemodialysis patients by machine learning.

Zhou T, Ren Z, Ma Y, He L, Liu J, Tang J Heliyon. 2023; 9(7):e18263.

PMID: 37519767 PMC: 10375788. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e18263.


Comparative Clinical Performances of Tunneled Central Venous Catheters versus Arterio-Venous Accesses in Patients Receiving High-Volume Hemodiafiltration: The Case for High-Flow DualCath, a Tunneled Two-Single-Lumen Silicone Catheter.

Canaud B, Leray-Moragues H, Chenine L, Morena M, Miller G, Canaud L J Clin Med. 2023; 12(14).

PMID: 37510847 PMC: 10381463. DOI: 10.3390/jcm12144732.


Patient Perceptions of and Preferences Between Characteristics of Injectable Diabetes Treatments.

Boye K, Jordan J, Malik R, Currie B, Matza L Diabetes Ther. 2021; 12(9):2387-2403.

PMID: 34297341 PMC: 8385031. DOI: 10.1007/s13300-021-01097-9.


Shared decision-making in hemodialysis vascular access practice.

Murea M, Grey C, Lok C Kidney Int. 2021; 100(4):799-808.

PMID: 34246655 PMC: 8463450. DOI: 10.1016/j.kint.2021.05.041.