动静脉通路分期(AVAS)分类的验证:一项前瞻性国际多中心研究。

IF 3.9 2区 医学 Q1 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Clinical Kidney Journal Pub Date : 2024-08-30 eCollection Date: 2024-09-01 DOI:10.1093/ckj/sfae272
Katerina Lawrie, Petr Waldauf, Peter Balaz, Ricardo Lacerda, Emma Aitken, Krzysztof Letachowicz, Mario D'Oria, Vittorio Di Maso, Pavel Stasko, Antonio Gomes, Joana Fontainhas, Matej Pekar, Alena Srdelic, Stephen O'Neill
{"title":"动静脉通路分期(AVAS)分类的验证:一项前瞻性国际多中心研究。","authors":"Katerina Lawrie, Petr Waldauf, Peter Balaz, Ricardo Lacerda, Emma Aitken, Krzysztof Letachowicz, Mario D'Oria, Vittorio Di Maso, Pavel Stasko, Antonio Gomes, Joana Fontainhas, Matej Pekar, Alena Srdelic, Stephen O'Neill","doi":"10.1093/ckj/sfae272","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The arteriovenous access stage (AVAS) classification provides evaluation of upper extremity vessels for vascular access (VA) suitability. It divides patients into classes within three main groups: suitable for native fistula (AVAS1) or prosthetic graft (AVAS2), and patients not suitable for conventional native or prosthetic VA (AVAS3). We validated this system on a prospective dataset.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A prospective, international observational study (NCT04796558) involved 11 centres from 8 countries. Patient recruitment was from March 2021 to January 2024. Demographic data, risk factors, vessels parameters, VA types, AVAS class and early VA failure were collected. Percentage agreement was used to assess predictive ability of AVAS (comparison of AVAS and created VA) and consistency of AVAS assessment between evaluators. Pearson's Chi-squared test was used for comparison of early failure rate of conventional (predicted by AVAS) and unconventional (not predicted by AVAS) VA.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From 1034 enrolled patients, 935 had arteriovenous fistula or graft, 99 patients did not undergo VA creation due opting for alternative renal replacement therapies, experiencing health complications, death or non-compliance. AVAS1 had 91.2%, AVAS2 7.2% and AVAS3 1.6% of patients. Agreement between evaluators was 89%. The most frequently created VAs were radial-cephalic (46%) and brachial-cephalic (27%) fistulae. The accuracy of AVAS versus created access was 79%. In comparison, VA predicted by clinicians versus created access was 62.1%. Inaccuracy of AVAS prediction was more common with higher AVAS classes, and the most common reason for inaccuracy was creation of distal VA despite less favourable anatomy (17%). Patients with unconventional VA had higher early failure rate than patients with conventional VA (20% vs 9.3%, respectively, <i>P</i> = .002).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>AVAS is effective in predicting VA creation, but overall accuracy is reduced at higher AVAS classes when the complexity of decision-making increases and proximal vessels require preservation. When AVAS was followed by clinicians, early failure was significantly decreased.</p>","PeriodicalId":10435,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Kidney Journal","volume":"17 9","pages":"sfae272"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11426276/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Validation of arteriovenous access stage (AVAS) classification: a prospective, international multicentre study.\",\"authors\":\"Katerina Lawrie, Petr Waldauf, Peter Balaz, Ricardo Lacerda, Emma Aitken, Krzysztof Letachowicz, Mario D'Oria, Vittorio Di Maso, Pavel Stasko, Antonio Gomes, Joana Fontainhas, Matej Pekar, Alena Srdelic, Stephen O'Neill\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ckj/sfae272\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The arteriovenous access stage (AVAS) classification provides evaluation of upper extremity vessels for vascular access (VA) suitability. It divides patients into classes within three main groups: suitable for native fistula (AVAS1) or prosthetic graft (AVAS2), and patients not suitable for conventional native or prosthetic VA (AVAS3). We validated this system on a prospective dataset.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A prospective, international observational study (NCT04796558) involved 11 centres from 8 countries. Patient recruitment was from March 2021 to January 2024. Demographic data, risk factors, vessels parameters, VA types, AVAS class and early VA failure were collected. Percentage agreement was used to assess predictive ability of AVAS (comparison of AVAS and created VA) and consistency of AVAS assessment between evaluators. Pearson's Chi-squared test was used for comparison of early failure rate of conventional (predicted by AVAS) and unconventional (not predicted by AVAS) VA.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From 1034 enrolled patients, 935 had arteriovenous fistula or graft, 99 patients did not undergo VA creation due opting for alternative renal replacement therapies, experiencing health complications, death or non-compliance. AVAS1 had 91.2%, AVAS2 7.2% and AVAS3 1.6% of patients. Agreement between evaluators was 89%. The most frequently created VAs were radial-cephalic (46%) and brachial-cephalic (27%) fistulae. The accuracy of AVAS versus created access was 79%. In comparison, VA predicted by clinicians versus created access was 62.1%. Inaccuracy of AVAS prediction was more common with higher AVAS classes, and the most common reason for inaccuracy was creation of distal VA despite less favourable anatomy (17%). Patients with unconventional VA had higher early failure rate than patients with conventional VA (20% vs 9.3%, respectively, <i>P</i> = .002).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>AVAS is effective in predicting VA creation, but overall accuracy is reduced at higher AVAS classes when the complexity of decision-making increases and proximal vessels require preservation. When AVAS was followed by clinicians, early failure was significantly decreased.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10435,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Kidney Journal\",\"volume\":\"17 9\",\"pages\":\"sfae272\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11426276/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Kidney Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ckj/sfae272\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/9/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Kidney Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ckj/sfae272","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:动静脉通路分级(AVAS)对上肢血管的血管通路(VA)适宜性进行评估。它将患者分为三大类:适合原位造瘘(AVAS1)或人工血管移植(AVAS2)的患者,以及不适合传统原位或人工血管通路(AVAS3)的患者。我们在前瞻性数据集上验证了这一系统:一项前瞻性国际观察研究(NCT04796558)涉及 8 个国家的 11 个中心。患者招募时间为 2021 年 3 月至 2024 年 1 月。收集了人口统计学数据、风险因素、血管参数、VA 类型、AVAS 分级和早期 VA 故障。一致百分比用于评估 AVAS 的预测能力(AVAS 与创建的 VA 的比较)以及评估者之间 AVAS 评估的一致性。皮尔逊卡方检验用于比较常规(由 AVAS 预测)和非常规(非 AVAS 预测)VA 的早期失败率:在 1034 名登记患者中,935 人有动静脉瘘或移植,99 人因选择其他肾脏替代疗法、出现健康并发症、死亡或不遵从医嘱而未进行 VA 创建。AVAS1 患者占 91.2%,AVAS2 患者占 7.2%,AVAS3 患者占 1.6%。评估者之间的一致性为 89%。最常创建的 VAs 是桡动脉-脑瘘管(46%)和肱动脉-脑瘘管(27%)。AVAS 与创建通道的准确率为 79%。相比之下,临床医生预测的 VA 与创建的通路相比准确率为 62.1%。AVAS 预测不准确的情况在 AVAS 等级较高时更为常见,不准确的最常见原因是尽管解剖结构不太有利,但仍创建了远端 VA(17%)。非常规 VA 患者的早期失败率高于常规 VA 患者(分别为 20% 和 9.3%,P = .002):AVAS能有效预测VA的建立,但当决策的复杂性增加且近端血管需要保留时,AVAS等级越高,总体准确性越低。当临床医生遵循 AVAS 时,早期失败率明显降低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Validation of arteriovenous access stage (AVAS) classification: a prospective, international multicentre study.

Background: The arteriovenous access stage (AVAS) classification provides evaluation of upper extremity vessels for vascular access (VA) suitability. It divides patients into classes within three main groups: suitable for native fistula (AVAS1) or prosthetic graft (AVAS2), and patients not suitable for conventional native or prosthetic VA (AVAS3). We validated this system on a prospective dataset.

Methods: A prospective, international observational study (NCT04796558) involved 11 centres from 8 countries. Patient recruitment was from March 2021 to January 2024. Demographic data, risk factors, vessels parameters, VA types, AVAS class and early VA failure were collected. Percentage agreement was used to assess predictive ability of AVAS (comparison of AVAS and created VA) and consistency of AVAS assessment between evaluators. Pearson's Chi-squared test was used for comparison of early failure rate of conventional (predicted by AVAS) and unconventional (not predicted by AVAS) VA.

Results: From 1034 enrolled patients, 935 had arteriovenous fistula or graft, 99 patients did not undergo VA creation due opting for alternative renal replacement therapies, experiencing health complications, death or non-compliance. AVAS1 had 91.2%, AVAS2 7.2% and AVAS3 1.6% of patients. Agreement between evaluators was 89%. The most frequently created VAs were radial-cephalic (46%) and brachial-cephalic (27%) fistulae. The accuracy of AVAS versus created access was 79%. In comparison, VA predicted by clinicians versus created access was 62.1%. Inaccuracy of AVAS prediction was more common with higher AVAS classes, and the most common reason for inaccuracy was creation of distal VA despite less favourable anatomy (17%). Patients with unconventional VA had higher early failure rate than patients with conventional VA (20% vs 9.3%, respectively, P = .002).

Conclusion: AVAS is effective in predicting VA creation, but overall accuracy is reduced at higher AVAS classes when the complexity of decision-making increases and proximal vessels require preservation. When AVAS was followed by clinicians, early failure was significantly decreased.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Kidney Journal
Clinical Kidney Journal Medicine-Transplantation
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
10.90%
发文量
242
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: About the Journal Clinical Kidney Journal: Clinical and Translational Nephrology (ckj), an official journal of the ERA-EDTA (European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association), is a fully open access, online only journal publishing bimonthly. The journal is an essential educational and training resource integrating clinical, translational and educational research into clinical practice. ckj aims to contribute to a translational research culture among nephrologists and kidney pathologists that helps close the gap between basic researchers and practicing clinicians and promote sorely needed innovation in the Nephrology field. All research articles in this journal have undergone peer review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信