Publication:
The survival analysis of tunnel-cuffed central venous catheter versus arteriovenous hemodialysis access among elderly patients: A retrospective single center study

dc.contributor.authorSukit Raksasuken_US
dc.contributor.authorThanet Chaisathapholen_US
dc.contributor.authorChayanis Kositamongkolen_US
dc.contributor.authorWittawat Chokvanichen_US
dc.contributor.authorPratya Pumuthaiviraten_US
dc.contributor.authorThatsaphan Srithongkulen_US
dc.contributor.otherMahidol Universityen_US
dc.contributor.otherChulabhorn Royal Academyen_US
dc.date.accessioned2020-11-18T09:52:19Z
dc.date.available2020-11-18T09:52:19Z
dc.date.issued2020-12-01en_US
dc.description.abstract© 2020 The Authors Background: There is currently a controversy for the optimal vascular access option in the elderly, regarding their multiple comorbidities and life expectancies. Our study aimed to compare the survival of tunneled cuff venous catheter (CVC) and arteriovenous access (AV access) in elderly patients. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed by electronic medical record review. All hemodialysis patients aged 65 years and over who firstly initiated dialysis from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2016 at Siriraj hospital, Thailand, were included. The primary outcomes are to compare a 2-year period of survival between CVC and AV access in terms of abandonment, death, and combined outcome. Propensity score covariate and Charlson Comorbidity Score (CCI) were used for multivariable analysis adjustment. Results: A total of 359 patients were included; 216 (60.2%) patients had initiated hemodialysis via CVC while the rest used AV access. The patients’ average ages were 76.7 ± 7.0 and 74.0 ± 5.8 years (p-value<0.001) in the CVC and AV access group, respectively. The 2-year mortality rates of CVC and AV access groups were 24.1% and 15.4%, respectively (p-value = 0.038). Multivariable analyses showed that the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) of combined endpoints, i.e., vascular access abandonment and death, was statistically different only in the CCI-adjusted model (aHR = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.46–0.99). Mortality from infection cause was more common in the CVC group than the AV access group. Conclusion: CVC access maybe considers an alternative option for frail elderly patients. However, the patient selection is a crucial issue, given higher infection-related mortality in patients using CVC.en_US
dc.identifier.citationAnnals of Medicine and Surgery. Vol.60, (2020), 76-80en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.amsu.2020.10.032en_US
dc.identifier.issn20490801en_US
dc.identifier.other2-s2.0-85093082880en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/60011
dc.rightsMahidol Universityen_US
dc.rights.holderSCOPUSen_US
dc.source.urihttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85093082880&origin=inwarden_US
dc.subjectMedicineen_US
dc.titleThe survival analysis of tunnel-cuffed central venous catheter versus arteriovenous hemodialysis access among elderly patients: A retrospective single center studyen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dspace.entity.typePublication
mu.datasource.scopushttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85093082880&origin=inwarden_US

Files

Collections