Evidence Hub

Vascular Access Type and Survival Outcomes in Hemodialysis Patients: A Seven-Year Cohort Study

Jesús Venegas-Ramírez, Gustavo A. Hernández-Fuentes, Claudia S. Palomares, Janet Diaz-Martinez, Joel I. Navarro-Cuellar, Patricia Calvo-Soto, Carlos Duran, Rosa Tapia-Vargas et al.

Medicina, 2025

428 participants · 22 citations

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs) are the preferred vascular access for hemodialysis due to their impact on patient outcomes, including survival, infection rates, and overall quality of life. Despite strong recommendations favoring AVF, gaps in AVF utilization remain, influenced by clinical, demographic, and systemic factors. This study is the first to analyze survival outcomes associated with different dialysis vascular access types, adjusting for key clinical, demographic variables, and other comorbidities over extended periods. Materials and Methods: This ambispective cohort study followed 428 hemodialysis patients over seven years. Patients were categorized based on their access type: AVF (n = 189), tunneled central venous catheter (CVC) (n = 178), and non-tunneled CVC (n = 61). Kaplan–Meier survival analysis was used to estimate survival curves, and Cox proportional hazards regression adjusted for potential confounders, including age, diabetes, and hypertension. Results: The 2-year survival rates were as follows: AVF 94.1%, tunneled CVC 70.0%, and non-tunneled CVC 36.6%. The 7-year survival rates were as follows: AVF 65.5%, tunneled CVC 26.4%, and non-tunneled CVC 11.0%. Compared to AVF, tunneled CVC use was associated with a 2.8-fold increased risk of mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [AdHR] 2.8, 95% CI 2.0–4.1), while non-tunneled CVC increased the risk 5-fold (AdHR 5.0, 95% CI 3.3–7.6). Notably, older adults, women, and diabetic patients were…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 428 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free