‘Optimal’ vs. ‘Suboptimal’ Haemodialysis Start with Central Venous Catheter—A Better Way to Assess a Vascular Access Service?

Abstract

Background: Whether patients commence haemodialysis with a central venous catheter (CVC), or an arteriovenous fistula (AVF) is used to audit the quality of a vascular access service. However, this crude metric of measurement can miss the increasing nuance and complexity of vascular access planning. We aimed to understand whether commencing haemodialysis with a CVC represented an ‘optimal’ or ‘suboptimal’ outcome and how this could influence the assessment of a vascular access service. Methods: From a prospective clinical database, patients known to nephrology >90 days prior to initiating haemodialysis as first-ever renal replacement therapy (2011–2020) from a single centre were included. Results: A total of 158/254 patients started haemodialysis with a CVC, and 96 with arteriovenous fistula. For 91 patients, the CVC was deemed ‘optimal’ care due to factors such as unpredictable deterioration in renal function (n = 41) and inadequate veins for AVF creation (n = 24). For 67 patients, the CVC was ‘suboptimal’ due to factors such as no/late referral to access assessment (n = 25) and delays in the AVF creation pathway (n = 13). There was no difference in mean survival between the AVF and ‘suboptimal’ groups (2.53 vs. 2.21 years, p = 0.31). There was a survival difference between AVF versus CVC (2.53 vs. 1.97 years, p = 0.002) and ‘suboptimal’ versus ‘optimal’ CVC cohorts (2.21 vs. 1.40 years, p = 0.16). Conclusions: Understanding whether a CVC is ‘optimal’ or ‘suboptimal’ allows a more nuanced analysis of service provision. High mortality in the ‘optimal’ group suggests a frailer cohort where CVC is potentially the best care. Studying ‘suboptimal’ CVC starts helps identify practice and system issues preventing ‘optimal’ care.