Next Article in Journal
Identification of Follow-Up Markers for Rehabilitation Management in Patients with Vestibular Schwannoma
Next Article in Special Issue
Prevalence of Impaired Physical Mobility in Dialysis Patients: A Single-Centre Cross-Sectional Study
Previous Article in Journal
Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump among Shockable Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Patients: A Propensity-Weighted Analysis in a Multicenter, Nationwide Observational Study in Japan (The JAAM-OHCA Registry)
Previous Article in Special Issue
Predictors for Unsuccessful Reductions in Hemodialysis Frequency during the Pandemic
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 12
Issue 18
10.3390/jcm12185946
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Cannulation Technique of Vascular Access in Hemodialysis and the Impact on the Arteriovenous Fistula Survival: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

by
Ricardo Peralta
1,2,*,
Luís Sousa
3,4 and
António Filipe Cristovão
1
1
Lisbon School of Nursing, University of Lisbon, 1600-096 Lisbon, Portugal
2
NephroCare Portugal, Fresenius Medical Care Portugal, 1750-233 Lisbon, Portugal
3
School of Health Atlântica (ESSATLA), 2730-036 Oeiras, Portugal
4
Comprehensive Health Research Centre (CHRC), 7000-811 Evora, Portugal
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12(18), 5946; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12185946
Submission received: 10 August 2023 / Revised: 30 August 2023 / Accepted: 7 September 2023 / Published: 13 September 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Clinical Application of Hemodialysis and Its Adverse Effects)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Adequate cannulation technique (CT) methods and successful puncture are essential for hemodialysis (HD) and arteriovenous fistula (AVF) maintenance. This systematic review and meta-analysis was designed to identify which CT allows better AVF primary patency and lower rates of complications in HD patients. The search was carried out on the CINAHL, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Joanna Briggs Institute Library databases to identify all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing clinical outcomes of buttonhole (BH) versus rope ladder cannulation (RL) from 2010 to 2022. The Risk-of-Bias (Rob 2) tool was used for RCTs and the ROBINS-I was used for non-randomized studies. RevMan 5.4 was used for the meta-analysis. A total of five RCTs, one quasi-randomized controlled trial, and six observational studies were included. When compared with RL cannulation, BH cannulation significantly increased bacteremia (RR, 2.76, 95% CI (1.14, 6.67), p = 0.02) but showed no differences in AVF primary patency (HR, 1.06, 95% CI (0.45, 4.21), p = 0.90). There was no thrombosis reduction (RR, 0.51, 95% CI (0.23, 1.14), p = 0.10) or intervention number reduction (RR, 0.93, 95% CI (0.49, 1.80), p = 0.84) with BH. Outcomes like pain, hematoma, and aneurism could not be merged due to a lack of data, reported as medians, as well as due to different definitions. The quality in general was poor and the heterogeneity among the studies prevented us from merging the outcomes.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

With the increase in the number of elderly patients, the exhaustion of vascular territory, and the emergence of diabetes as the primary cause of renal etiology, the establishment and preservation of suitable vascular access (VA) is essential for the successful treatment of patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) on hemodialysis (HD) programs. A functioning VA is the lifeline [1,2] that allows patients the undergoing of HD such as renal replacement therapy, allowing their survival and the maintenance of an acceptable quality of life. Conversely, the preservation and maintenance of a complication-free VA remains the Achilles’ heel of this field [2,3]. Moreover, VA dysfunctions remain the major cause of comorbidities and hospitalizations [4,5,6] in ESKD patients. The selections of the most suitable cannulation technique (CT) and VA cannulation are the most important aspects in dialysis [7], and nurses have the responsibility for constantly updating their knowledge and skills in this area. Selection of the best technique is fundamental to the proper use of VA and allows effective treatment; the correct and appropriate choice of arteriovenous fistula (AVF) cannulation is the key to its preservation and the prevention of VA-related dysfunction [8]. The technique that has always been referenced and recommended as preferable for AVF cannulation is the rope ladder (RL) technique [9,10].
However, challenges have been identified in the use of this cannulation technique such as severe pain with an impact on treatment time [11,12] and an increased risk of hematomas [13]. However, nurses tend not to explore the entire length of the vessel due to the increased risk of infiltration, and even with a protocol for the use of the RL technique, they end up using area cannulation [14]. The area CT leads to a decreased vein wall and tissue thickening and consequent aneurysm formation, with the increased risk of vein wall rupture [8]. Despite this knowledge, it is the most commonly used technique in some European countries, being used in 65.8% (44% to 77%) of patients compared to 28.2% for RL and 6% for BH [15]. The BH technique has some limitations since it must be used exclusively in AVF and requires the cannulation to be performed by the same nurse until the tunnel is built, and it is time-consuming. Although some have reported the advantages of BH, others have reported increased risks of local infection and bacteremia [16,17], even after major re-education and asepsis technique campaigns [18].
In recent years, some studies have been published [17,19,20] that may contribute to clarifying which CT allows for greater fistula survival and fewer complications. Therefore, this study aims to identify which CT allows for greater AVF survival and a lower rate of complications and which CT causes less pain for patients who undergo regular hemodialysis.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Search Strategy

This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines [21]. The protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database prior to commencement (registration number CRD42021237050).
We conducted searches on the EBSCO platform, accessing the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and MEDLINE databases using the following Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) (2021) and strategy: ((MH “Dialysis”) OR (MH “Renal Dialysis”) OR (MH “Hemodialysis”) OR (MH “Kidney Failure Chronic”)) AND (((MH “Arteriovenous Fistula”) OR (MH “Catheterization”)) AND ((“Buttonhole”) OR (buttonhole) (OR constant site)) AND ((rope-ladder) OR (ropeladder) OR (rotating site))). We also considered other databases such as the Cochrane Library, ScienceDirect web, Joanna Briggs Institute Library Evidence-Based Practice Network (JBI), SCOPUS, ResearchGate, American Society of Nephrology (ASN), American Nephrology Nurses Association (ANNA), Sociedade Espanhola de Nefrologia (SEN), and Sociedade Brasileira de Nefrologia (SBN). We considered these databases because they publish randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies in the nephrology field. All the articles included in the review were available in full text. A flow chart is shown in Figure 1.

2.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

We included all RCTs and quasi-experimental and prospective observational studies published between January 2000 and January 2022 that satisfied the following criteria: studies that compare CTs and thus define the advantages and risks of each CT; primary and full studies, or abstracts that include one or some outcomes. We reviewed articles in English that enrolled adults aged 18 years and older who underwent hemodialysis using an autogenous AVF. Patients who underwent BH were considered the experimental group, and patients who underwent RL or other CT were considered the control group.
We excluded studies associating patient data from home hemodialysis with data from hospital or hemodialysis clinics and studies with incidents of patients on hemodialysis and qualitative studies.

2.3. Outcome Indicators

The primary outcome was the fistula primary patency, and according to Lee T. et al. [22], this was evaluated by the percentage of AVF in use from the study start to the time of the first clinical intervention for angioplasty or vascular surgery (unassisted patency).
The secondary outcome was considered fistula survival, for which failure was defined as AVF no longer used for successful HD. The numbers of interventions, thrombosis, bacteremia, cannulation pain related to CT, hematoma or infiltration, bleeding time, aneurysm, and unsuccessful cannulation were considered.

2.4. Data Extraction

First, the studies were independently selected by a reviewer (RP). The titles and content of the abstracts were assessed. Then, the second reviewer (AC) carried out the subsequent verification and validation. This selection was made strictly according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria defined in the protocol published elsewhere [23]. All duplicate studies were refused. When the title and abstract were not sufficiently enlightening, a new search was carried out for the full article. After this selection, the full versions of the potentially eligible studies were extracted.

2.5. Quality Assessment

To assess the risk of bias in RCT studies, we used the Revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias Tool for Randomized Trials (RoB 2) tool [24]. According to the number of articles selected and the evidence found, studies with low methodological quality were excluded. Therefore, each study was categorized as presenting low risk, high risk, or unclear risk of bias. For non-randomized studies, the Risk of Bias In Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) [25] was used.

2.6. Statistical Analysis

The studies selected for the systematic review were presented in a summary table with the following main attributes: the author’s name, year of publication, country, study design, sample size (n), and outcome analysis method. Outcomes: participant’s characteristics (average age, comorbidities), context of dialysis (hospital, clinic, or home), follow-up of the study (months), and primary and secondary outcomes obtained, including the pain scoring tool used to define the severity of pain. We performed a meta-analysis only when studies were sufficiently homogeneous in terms of participants, interventions, outcomes, measurement, and method of aggregation (e.g., mean, proportion). We presented the results in a narrative form when statistical comparisons were not possible. Tables and figures were included to facilitate the presentation of the data. Meta-analysis was performed with the generic inverse variance method using Cochrane Collaboration Review Manager software (RevMan 5.4) for Windows.

3. Results

3.1. Characteristics of the Included Studies

We selected five RCTs [13,16,19,26,27], one controlled clinical trial [28], and six observational studies [14,29,30,31]. Two were crossover studies [32,33], and the characteristics are shown in Table 1 and Table S1. For the meta-analysis, only RCT studies and outcomes that could be merged were considered.
The studies were published between 2010 and 2022 with the inclusion of 717 patients in the RCT studies and 633 in the observational ones. The studies were mostly carried out in one clinic, with three in multiple clinics and one between a hospital and multicenter. The control group assumed a wide range of designations such as traditional RL [26] (TRL), standard needling [13,16] (SN), usual practice [27] (UP), traditional method [29] (TM), and area technique [31,32]. The remaining studies in the control group used the RL, but among the 12 studies, only 1 used a diagram [19] for guidance of puncture sites during follow-up. The follow-up period varied between 2 and 60 months.

3.2. Risk-of-Bias Assessment for RCT Studies

Figure 2 shows the risk-of-bias assessment that estimated the relative effect of the unassisted primary patency between BH and RL.
Only four studies evaluated this outcome [16,19,27,28] (Figure S1). Risk of bias was observed in the randomization process in one study [28], and no studies blinded personnel or participants due to the visibility and characteristics of the intervention. Some baseline characteristics that may influence the outcome were not evaluated or were significantly different between the two groups. The intended interventions were not illustrated in detail in the trial protocol, mainly cannulation in RL. In two studies, the control group was designated as the usual practice [27], and standard needling [16] and implementation of the CT were not described.

3.3. Risk-of-Bias Assessment for Observational Studies

All studies had a critical risk of bias in the first two domains (Figure 3 and Figure S2). No baseline factors that could bias the outcomes were assessed, participant selection was not randomized, and no studies blinded personnel or participants. All involved participants had used AVF before the study began. Some studies had few participants [32,33], and in 50% of the studies, the follow-up was less than four months. Limitations were also identified in the remaining domains; no study described how it implemented the CT in the control group or used a diagram for the RL. Bias was due to missing data [30], and in another study [31], the participants in the control group used RL and area CT.

3.4. Primary Outcome—Unassisted Primary Patency

Four RCTs reported this outcome, and the results are shown in Table S2. For the meta-analysis, three studies [19,27,28] were used that reported data in a hazard ratio, as shown in Figure 4. The test showed high heterogeneity among the studies, and using the random effects model (p < 0.1 e I2 = 81%), it was not possible to prove which CT allowed greater unassisted primary patency (HR, 1.06 (95% CI 0.45–2.50) p = 0.90).

3.5. Number of Interventions in the Fistula

There were three studies (Table S3) that reported the number of interventions for AVF and after merging data (Figure 5) showed the existence of high heterogeneity. When using the random effects model (p < 0.1 e I2 = 78%), it was not possible to prove which CT allowed a lower rate of interventions (angioplasty or surgery) in AVF (RR, 0.93 (95% CI 0.49–1.80) p = 0.84).

3.6. Arteriovenous Fistula Thrombosis

In the four studies that reported AVF thrombosis [16,19,26,27] (Table S3), apparently, there was a higher incidence of thrombosis in the control group. At least one study [27] showed the highest frequency of thrombosis events related to usual CT (eight events) compared to BH (one event). After merging the data (Figure 6) of these four studies, they were shown to be homogeneous using the fixed effects model (p > 0.1 e I2 = 0%). However, it was not possible to confirm which CT allowed a lower frequency of AVF thrombosis (RR, 0.51 (95% CI 0.23–1.14) p = 0.10).

3.7. Bacteremia and/or Localized Signs of Infection Related to Vascular Access

All six RCTs (Table S4) assessed the frequency of bacteremia and localized signs of infection related to vascular access. Three studies [13,16,28] reported a higher incidence of bacteremia associated with BH, and one [27] showed more infection rates associated with the usual-practice group (0.09/1000 AVF days).
Vascular access infection was reported by three observational studies [14,30,31] but with different methodologies for assessment and presentation of results. Even so, the studies by van Loon et al. [14] and Glerup R. et al. [31] showed a significantly higher rate of infection (p < 0.001) associated with BH (Table S5).
RCTs [13,16,27,28] were merged using the fixed effect model. The test showed homogeneity among studies, p > 0.1 and I2 = 47%. A significant difference was observed (Figure 7) in the incidence of bacteremia associated with BH (RR, 2.76 (95% CI 1.14–6.67) p = 0.02).
There also seemed to be a higher rate of localized infection in the BH group. MacRae J. et al. [13] showed a significant difference (p = 0.003) in local signs of infection associated with BH (50 per 1000/HD sessions) compared with the SN group (22.4/1000 HD sessions).

3.8. Cannulation Pain

There were three RCTs [13,26,27] (Table S6) that assessed cannulation pain and reported it as a median, but these data could not be merged. However, there seemed to be a marginal advantage in the Vaux et al. study [27] (p = 0.05) regarding pain reduction in the control group. In this study, eight patients asked to change to the usual practice because of pain associated with the BH. In contrast, three observational studies [29,32,33] (Table S7) showed a significant reduction in pain (p = 0.0049, and p < 0.001) when using BH. Of the eight studies evaluating cannulation pain, in five studies, the participants used analgesic cream.

3.9. Hematoma Associated with Cannulation Techniques

There were two RCTs [13,26] (Table S8) and two observational studies [14,30] (Table S9) that reported a reduction in the rate of hematomas associated with BH. MacRae et al. [13] showed a significant reduction in the rate of hematomas using BH (p = 0.003) compared with SN. Van Loon et al. [14] also found that the patients in the BH group had lesser hematoma formation (p < 0.0001). Apparently, there was an advantage associated with BH in reducing hematomas, but it was not possible to merge data because the presentation of the results was different. We understand that further studies are needed to assess the frequency of hematomas associated with CT.

3.10. Bleeding Time Post-Dialysis

The three RCTs [13,26,27] (Table S8) failed to show the advantage of BH in bleeding time after needle removal. The data could not be merged because of the various definitions of hemostasis and because the data were presented differently. Contrarily, three observational studies [29,32,33] concluded that the bleeding time was significantly lower in patients in the BH group (Table S9).

3.11. Aneurysm Formation/Aneurysm Enlargement

There seemed to be unanimity of both RCTs (Table S10) and observational studies (Table S11) in finding that BH was associated with a reduction in aneurysms. The buttonhole significantly reduced existing aneurysm enlargement when it was compared with traditional rope ladder needling [26] and usual practice [27]. When assessing the prospect of aneurysm formation, only one study [19] reported that BH was advantageous over RL. The data could not be merged because of the various definitions of aneurysm enlargement and because the data were presented differently. Observational studies [14,29,30] reported that patients in the BH group had less aneurysm formation, but the follow-up in these studies was short, between 3 and 9 months.

3.12. Unsuccessful Cannulation

Nurses perceived significantly higher levels of difficulty with both arterial and venous cannulation in the BH [13] group (p < 0.001) compared to standard CT mainly after the fourth month. In another study [27], BH could not be implemented or there were subsequent problems with cannulation in four (6.89%) patients. There were two observational studies [14,30] (Table S11) that assessed unsuccessful cannulations and concluded that BH was associated with a significant increase in miscannulation [14] and where patients in the control group required more than two cannulation attempts [30]. The authors mentioned that miscannulation in the BH group may be attributed to the “trampoline” effect due to the wrong angle of cannulation when the needle is inserted in the tunnel; the needle encounters greater resistance because it does not have the same penetration capacity.

4. Discussion

The outcome measures used were numerous and heterogeneous at every level—measurement, metric, method of aggregation, time point of measurement, and follow-up—making it very difficult to reliably evaluate the comparative effectiveness of interventions. There were no attempts to standardize some definitions, mainly the CT used in the control group, which had implications for decisions in clinical practice and improvement in the quality of life of patients under hemodialysis. The different puncture classifications in the control group described above led us to think that they were different puncture methods, or we presumed that the studies used area CT instead of RL. Only one study used patients with incident AVF and described in detail how RL was implemented. They also used the multiple single cannulation technique (MuST) [19,34,35], recently described as a hybrid CT between the rope ladder and the buttonhole that incorporates the benefits from both with promising results. The experimental group and the control group used different CT methods, and therefore blinding could not be applied to patients, nurses, or researchers. Half of the observational studies had fewer than 50 participants, and two were clinical crossover studies with only 21 and 31 patients. Consequently, our comparative assessments of the meta-analysis results from RCTs to guide evidence-based clinical practice are likely to be problematic. The need to standardize outcome measures for vascular access complications has been recognized and several proposals have been published over the last two decades [8,22,36].
Other studies [37] also faced limitations. The outcome measures were assessed in dozens of different ways, and this made it impossible to compare the results across trials and determine that all trials contributed relevant and usable information.
The results of this meta-analysis indicated that BH did not show evidence of superiority in primary patency or in the reduction in the number of interventions when compared with RL. In the study by MacRae et al. [16], no significant differences (p = 0.20) were found in AVF survival, even with longer follow-up. These are very important outcome indicators, but there was limited research and the few selected studies revealed considerable heterogeneity (I2 = 81%). Therefore, it is recommended that future studies perform more analysis on fistula survival.
The results of this meta-analysis are inconclusive if BH reduces the number of cases of thrombosis; however, there was a clear trend toward a lower incidence of this event. Two previous systematic reviews [38,39] concluded that BH significantly reduced the occurrence of thrombosis. However, in our study, the higher incidence of thrombosis was associated with studies [16,26,27] in which BH was compared with other often ill-defined CTs such as standard needling, traditional rope ladder, and usual practice.
The results indicated that BH has a higher risk of AVF bacteremia than RL. These results are similar to those of another systematic review [40], which showed that infection risk was approximately threefold higher with BH cannulation (RR, 3.34; 95% CI, 0.91 to 12.20; p = 0.07). However, we must consider that there were only four trials with a small sample size (243 versus 246) and a small event size (17 versus 5), and these results showed a lack of statistical power. A retrospective observational study [17] using National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) surveillance data concluded that BH was associated with a significantly higher risk of access-related bloodstream infection (adjusted relative risk (aRR), 2.6; 95% CI, 2.4–2.8) and local access-site infection (aRR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.4–1.6) than RL. Despite the re-education programs associated with a strict asepsis policy, audit cycles, and the active eradication of staphylococcus aureus bacteremia, infection rates remained high in BH [18].
However, other studies [38,39] did not find significant differences in the risk of infection between BH and RL. This complication may occur late and not be reported in studies with follow-ups of less than 12 months [16]. To support this inference, an observational [31] study with 60 months of follow-up concluded that bacteremia was significantly higher for buttonhole compared to stepladder/area needling.
This study showed that BH did not reduce the incidence of pain, despite the reduction in injury caused by blunt needles. However, this can be explained by the increase in miscannulation and the “trampoline” effect [14,30] using blunt needles. Two other studies drew the same conclusion [38,39].
There is a clear trend in favor of BH in reducing the rate of hematomas and aneurysm development in RCTs and observational studies. This is in accordance with other studies [38,39] that showed some results, but we should not forget that in these literature reviews, some studies used a CT that is different from RL. On the other hand, the significant increase in aneurysms when using RL, even with an implemented protocol, may be associated with the daily use of area cannulation by professionals [14].
As limitations of this study, we found some constraints on the quality of the included studies, especially the observational studies. The multiple definitions of RL in the control group limited the results, with implications for decisions in clinical practice. Also, the follow-up lengths of the studies were short, and outcomes such as infection and new aneurysms occurred late. Another limitation was the small number of studies and participants, so it would have been useful to conduct a sequential analysis of trials [41,42].

5. Conclusions

This meta-analysis demonstrated that BH is significantly associated with higher bacteremia; however, it found no differences in AVF primary patency, number of interventions, or thrombosis. Therefore, BH should be exclusively reserved for home dialysis patients or those with anatomical constraints, as described by some authors [10,43].
To select the best CT for each person, it is necessary to adopt a decision model [44,45] that also involves the patient. In this way, we recommend that VA care should be extended to the patient with education, promoting the development of self-care behaviors by providing the necessary knowledge to patients [46]. To avoid the indiscriminate use of area CT, RL must be implemented with a diagram adjusted to each patient.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/jcm12185946/s1, Figure S1: Summary of the risk of bias of the 5 domains assessed in each RCT; Figure S2: Summary of the risk of bias of the 7 domains assessed from the observational studies; Table S1: Characteristics of included observational studies; Table S2: Relative effect of the unassisted primary patency of arteriovenous fistula; Table S3: Number of interventions and thrombosis as the outcome of cannulation techniques in arteriovenous fistulas; Table S4: Bacteremia and local signs of infection as an outcome of the cannulation technique in arteriovenous fistulas in RCT studies; Table S5: Bacteremia and local signs of infection as an outcome of the cannulation technique in arteriovenous fistulas in observational studies; Table S6: Pain as an outcome of the cannulation technique in arteriovenous fistulas in RCT studies; Table S7: Pain as an outcome of the cannulation technique in arteriovenous fistulas in observational studies; Table S8: Hematoma and bleeding time as an outcome of the cannulation technique in arteriovenous fistulas in RCT studies; Table S9: Hematoma and bleeding time as an outcome of the cannulation technique in arteriovenous fistulas in observational studies; Table S10: Aneurism formation/development as an outcome of the cannulation technique in arteriovenous fistulas in RCT studies; Table S11: Aneurism formation/development and unsuccessful cannulation as an outcome of the cannulation technique in arteriovenous fistulas in observational studies.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.P.; methodology, R.P. and A.F.C.; investigation R.P. and A.F.C.; writing—original draft preparation, R.P.; writing—review and editing, R.P., L.S. and A.F.C.; supervision, L.S. and A.F.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Lee, T. Novel paradigms for dialysis vascular access: Downstream vascular biology-is there a final common pathway? Clin. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 2013, 8, 2194–2201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Nath, K.A. Dialysis Vascular Access Intervention and the Search for Biomarkers. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 2016, 27, 970–972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Ethier, J.; Mendelssohn, D.C.; Elder, S.J.; Hasegawa, T.; Akizawa, T.; Akiba, T.; Canaud, B.J.; Pisoni, R.L. Vascular access use and outcomes: An international perspective from the dialysis outcomes and practice patterns study. Nephrol. Dial. Transplant. 2008, 23, 3219–3226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Feldman, H.I.; Held, P.J.; Hutchinson, J.T.; Stoiber, E.; Hartigan, M.F.; Berlin, J.A. Hemodialysis vascular access morbidity in the United States. Kidney Int. 1993, 43, 1091–1096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Roy-Chaudhury, P.; Sukhatme Vikas, P.; Cheung, A.K. Hemodialysis Vascular Access Dysfunction: A Cellular and Molecular Viewpoint. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 2006, 17, 1112–1127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Dhingra, R.K.; Young, E.W.; Hulbert-Shearon, T.E.; Leavey Sean, F.; Port, F.K. Type of vascular access and mortality in U.S. hemodialysis patients. Kidney Int. 2001, 60, 1443–1451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. McCann, M.; Einarsdottir, H.; Waeleghem, J.P.V.; Murphy, F.; Sedgwick, J. Vascular access management II: AVF/AVG cannulation techniques and complications. J. Ren. Care 2009, 35, 90–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Gallieni, M.; Hollenbeck, M.; Inston, N.; Kumwenda, M.; Powell, S.; Tordoir, J.; Al Shakarchi, J.; Berger, P.; Bolignano, D.; Cassidy, D.; et al. Clinical practice guideline on peri- and postoperative care of arteriovenous fistulas and grafts for haemodialysis in adults. Nephrol. Dial. Transplant. 2019, 34, II1–II42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ibeas, J.; Roca-Tey, R.; Vallespín, J.; Moreno, T.; Moñux, G.; Martí-Monrós, A.; del Pozo, J.L.; Gruss, E.; de Arellano, M.R.; Fontseré, N.; et al. Spanish Clinical Guidelines on Vascular Access for Haemodialysis. Nefrologia 2017, 37 (Suppl. S1), 1–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Lok, C.E.; Huber, T.S.; Lee, T.; Shenoy, S.; Yevzlin, A.S.; Abreo, K.; Allon, M.; Asif, A.; Astor, B.C.; Glickman, M.H.; et al. KDOQI Clinical Practice Guideline for Vascular Access: 2019 Update. Am. J. Kidney Dis. 2020, 75, S1–S164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Aitken, E.; McLellan, A.; Glen, J.; Serpell, M.; Mactier, R.; Clancy, M. Pain resulting from arteriovenous fistulae: Prevalence and impact. Clin. Nephrol. 2013, 80, 328–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. da Silva, O.M.; Rigon, E.; Dalazen, J.; Bissoloti, A.; Rabelo-Silva, E.R. Pain during Arteriovenous Fistula Cannulation in Chronic Renal Patients on Hemodialysis. Open J. Nurs. 2016, 06, 1028–1037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. MacRae, J.M.; Ahmed, S.B.; Atkar, R.; Hemmelgarn, B.R. A randomized trial comparing buttonhole with rope ladder needling in conventional hemodialysis patients. Clin. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 2012, 7, 1632–1638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Van Loon, M.M.; Goovaerts, T.; Kessels, A.G.H.; Van Der Sande, F.M.; Tordoir, J.H.M. Buttonhole needling of haemodialysis arteriovenous fistulae results in less complications and interventions compared to the rope-ladder technique. Nephrol. Dial. Transplant. 2010, 25, 225–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Parisotto, M.T.; Schoder, V.U.; Miriunis, C.; Grassmann, A.H.; Scatizzi, L.P.; Kaufmann, P.; Stopper, A.; Marcelli, D. Cannulation technique influences arteriovenous fistula and graft survival. Kidney Int. 2014, 86, 790–797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. MacRae, J.M.; Ahmed, S.B.; Hemmelgarn, B.R. Arteriovenous fistula survival and needling technique: Long-term results from a randomized buttonhole trial. Am. J. Kidney Dis. 2014, 63, 636–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Lyman, M.; Nguyen Duc, B.; Shugart, A.; Gruhler, H.; Lines, C.; Patel, P.R. Risk of Vascular Access Infection Associated With Buttonhole Cannulation of Fistulas: Data From the National Healthcare Safety Network. Am. J. Kidney Dis. 2020, 76, 82–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Collier, S.; Kandil, H.; Yewnetu, E.; Cross, J.; Caplin, B.; Davenport, A. Infection Rates Following Buttonhole Cannulation in Hemodialysis Patients. Ther. Apher. Dial. 2016, 20, 476–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Peralta, R.; Fazendeiro Matos, J.; Pinto, B.; Gonçalves, P.; Sousa, R.; Felix, C.; Carvalho, H.; Vinhas, J.; Ponce, P. Multiple single cannulation technique of arteriovenous fistula: A randomized controlled trial. Hemodial. Int. 2022, 26, 4–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Huang, S.H.S.; MacRae, J.; Ross, D.; Imtiaz, R.; Hollingsworth, B.; Nesrallah, G.E.; Copland, M.A.; McFarlane, P.A.; Chan, C.T.; Zimmerman, D. Buttonhole versus stepladder cannulation for home hemodialysis: A multicenter, randomized, pilot trial. Clin. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 2019, 14, 403–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Lee, T.; Mokrzycki, M.; Moist, L.; Maya, I.; Vazquez, M.; Lok, C.E. Standardized Definitions for Hemodialysis Vascular Access. Semin. Dial. 2011, 24, 515–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Peralta, R.; Sousa, L.; Cristóvão, A.F. Cannulation technique of vascular access in haemodialysis and the impact on the arteriovenous fistula survival: Protocol of systematic review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 18, 12554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Sterne, J.A.C.; Savović, J.; Page, M.J.; Elbers, R.G.; Blencowe, N.S.; Boutron, I.; Cates, C.J.; Cheng, H.-Y.; Corbett, M.S.; Eldridge, S.M.; et al. Revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias Tool for Randomized Trials (RoB 2); Cochrane: London, UK, 2019; pp. 1–24. Available online: https://methods.cochrane.org/risk-bias-2 (accessed on 1 March 2021).
  25. Sterne, J.A.C.; Hernán, M.A.; Reeves, B.C.; Savović, J.; Berkman, N.D.; Viswanathan, M.; Henry, D.; Altman, D.G.; Ansari, M.T.; Boutron, I.; et al. ROBINS-I: A tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomized studies of interventions. BMJ 2016, 355, i4919. Available online: http://www.riskofbias.info (accessed on 1 March 2021). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Struthers, J.; Allan, A.; Peel, R.K.; Lambie, S.H. Buttonhole needling of ateriovenous fistulae: A randomized controlled trial. ASAIO J. 2010, 56, 319–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Vaux, E.; King, J.; Lloyd, S.; Moore, J.; Bailey, L.; Reading, I.; Naik, R. Effect of buttonhole cannulation with a polycarbonate peg on in-center hemodialysis fistula outcomes: A randomized controlled trial. Am. J. Kidney Dis. 2013, 62, 81–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Chan, M.R.; Shobande, O.; Vats, H.; Wakeen, M.; Meyer, X.; Bellingham, J.; Astor, B.C.; Yevzlin, A.S. The effect of buttonhole cannulation vs. rope-ladder technique on hemodialysis access patency. Semin. Dial. 2014, 27, 210–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Pergolotti, A.; Rich, E.; Lock, K. The effect of the buttonhole method vs. the traditional method of AV fistula cannulation on hemostasis, needle stick pain, pre-needle stick anxiety, and presence of aneurysms in ambulatory patients on hemodialysis. Nephrol. Nurs. J. 2011, 38, 333–336. [Google Scholar]
  30. Smyth, W.; Hartig, V.; Manickam, V. Outcomes of buttonhole and rope-ladder cannulation techniques in a tropical renal service. J. Ren. Care 2013, 39, 157–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Glerup, R.; Svensson, M.; Jensen, J.D.; Christensen, J.H. Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia Risk in Hemodialysis Patients Using the Buttonhole Cannulation Technique: A Prospective Multicenter Study. Kidney Med. 2019, 1, 263–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Sukthinthai, N.; Sittipraneet, A.; Tummanittayangkoon, B.; Vasuvattakul, S.; Chanchairujira, T. Buttonhole technique better than area puncture technique on hemostasis and pain associated with needle cannulation. J. Med. Assoc. Thai. 2012, 95 (Suppl. S2), S208–S212. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  33. Kim, M.K.; Kim, H.S. Clinical effects of buttonhole cannulation method on hemodialysis patients. Hemodial. Int. 2013, 17, 294–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Peralta, R.; Matos, J.F.; Carvalho, H. Safe Needling of Arteriovenous Fistulae in Patients on Hemodialysis: Literature Review and a New Approach. Nephrol. Nurs. J. 2021, 48, 169–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Peralta, R.; Sousa, R.; Pinto, B.; Gonçalves, P.; Felix, C.; Fazendeiro Matos, J. Commentary on: “Multiple single cannulation technique of arteriovenous fistula: A randomized controlled trial”. Arch. Nephrol. Ren. Stud. 2021, 1, 28–33. [Google Scholar]
  36. Sidawy, A.N.; Gray, R.; Besarab, A.; Henry, M.; Ascher, E.; Silva, M., Jr.; Miller, A.; Scher, L.; Trerotola, S.; Gregory, R.T.; et al. Recommended standards for reports dealing with arteriovenous hemodialysis accesses. J. Vasc. Surg. 2002, 35, 603–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Viecelli, A.K.; O’Lone, E.; Sautenet, B.; Craig, J.C.; Tong, A.; Chemla, E.; Hooi, L.S.; Lee, T.; Lok, C.; Polkinghorne, K.R.; et al. Vascular Access Outcomes Reported in Maintenance Hemodialysis Trials: A Systematic Review. Am. J. Kidney Dis. 2018, 71, 382–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Ren, C.; Han, X.; Huang, B.; Yuan, L.; Cao, Y.; Yang, X. Efficacy of buttonhole cannulation (BH) in hemodialysis patients with arteriovenous fistula: A meta-analysis. Int. J. Clin. Exp. Med. 2016, 9, 15363–15370. [Google Scholar]
  39. Wang, L.-P.; Tsai, L.-H.; Huang, H.-Y.; Okoli, C.; Guo, S.-E. Effect of buttonhole cannulation versus rope- ladder cannulation in hemodialysis patients with vascular access: A systematic review and meta -analysis of randomized/clinical controlled trials. Medicine 2022, 101, e29597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Muir, C.A.; Kotwal, S.S.; Hawley, C.M.; Polkinghorne, K.; Gallagher, M.P.; Snelling, P.; Jardine, M.J. Buttonhole cannulation and clinical outcomes in a home hemodialysis cohort and systematic review. Clin. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 2014, 9, 110–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Kang, H. Trial sequential analysis: Novel approach for meta-analysis. Anesth. Pain Med. 2021, 16, 138–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Sanfilippo, F.; La Via, L.; Tigano, S.; Morgana, A.; La Rosa, V.; Astuto, M. Trial sequential analysis: The evaluation of the robustness of meta-analyses findings and the need for further research. Euromediterranean Biomed. J. 2021, 16, 104–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Nesrallah, G.E. Pro: Buttonhole cannulation of arteriovenous fistulae. Nephrol. Dial. Transplant. 2016, 31, 520–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Pinto, R.; Duarte, F.; Mata, F.; Sousa, C.; Salgueiro, A.; Fernandes, I. Construção e validação de um modelo de decisão para a canulação da fístula arteriovenosa em hemodiálise. Rev. Enferm. Ref. 2023, VI, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Pinto, R.; Sousa, C.; Salgueiro, A.; Fernandes, I. Arteriovenous fistula cannulation in hemodialysis: A vascular access clinical practice guidelines narrative review. J. Vasc. Access. 2022, 23, 825–831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Sousa, C.N.; Apóstolo, J.L.A.; Figueiredo, M.H.J.S.; Dias, V.F.F.; Teles, P.; Martins, M.M. Construction and validation of a scale of assessment of self-care behaviors with arteriovenous fistula in hemodialysis. Hemodial. Int. 2015, 19, 306–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Jcm 12 05946 g001
Figure 1. Study flow diagram.
Figure 1. Study flow diagram.
Jcm 12 05946 g001
Jcm 12 05946 g002
Figure 2. Risk of bias: review author judgments on each risk-of-bias item presented as percentages across the included RCTs.
Figure 2. Risk of bias: review author judgments on each risk-of-bias item presented as percentages across the included RCTs.
Jcm 12 05946 g002
Jcm 12 05946 g003
Figure 3. Risk of bias: review author judgments about the risk of bias in non-randomized studies of interventions.
Figure 3. Risk of bias: review author judgments about the risk of bias in non-randomized studies of interventions.
Jcm 12 05946 g003
Jcm 12 05946 g004
Figure 4. Result of unassisted primary survival rate between BH and RL. The hazard ratio of each study, Chan M. et al. (2014) [28], Vaux E. et al. (2013) [27], and Peralta R. et al. (2022) [19], is shown in red.
Figure 4. Result of unassisted primary survival rate between BH and RL. The hazard ratio of each study, Chan M. et al. (2014) [28], Vaux E. et al. (2013) [27], and Peralta R. et al. (2022) [19], is shown in red.
Jcm 12 05946 g004
Jcm 12 05946 g005
Figure 5. Result of the number of interventions in the AVF between the buttonhole and the rope ladder. The risk ratio of each study, Chan M. et al. (2014) [28], Peralta R. et al. (2022) [19], and Vaux E. et al. (2013) [27], is shown in blue.
Figure 5. Result of the number of interventions in the AVF between the buttonhole and the rope ladder. The risk ratio of each study, Chan M. et al. (2014) [28], Peralta R. et al. (2022) [19], and Vaux E. et al. (2013) [27], is shown in blue.
Jcm 12 05946 g005
Jcm 12 05946 g006
Figure 6. Result of the number of cases of thrombosis in the AVF between the buttonhole and the rope ladder. The risk ratio of each study, MacRae J. et al. (2014) [16], Peralta R. et al. (2022) [19], Struthers J. et al. (2010) [26], and Vaux E. et al. (2013) [27], is shown in blue.
Figure 6. Result of the number of cases of thrombosis in the AVF between the buttonhole and the rope ladder. The risk ratio of each study, MacRae J. et al. (2014) [16], Peralta R. et al. (2022) [19], Struthers J. et al. (2010) [26], and Vaux E. et al. (2013) [27], is shown in blue.
Jcm 12 05946 g006
Jcm 12 05946 g007
Figure 7. Result of the rate of bacteremia associated with cannulation techniques in arteriovenous fistulas. The risk ratio of each study, Chan M. et al. (2014) [28], MacRae J. et al. (2012) [13], MacRae J. et al. (2014) [16], and Vaux E. et al. (2013) [27], is shown in blue.
Figure 7. Result of the rate of bacteremia associated with cannulation techniques in arteriovenous fistulas. The risk ratio of each study, Chan M. et al. (2014) [28], MacRae J. et al. (2012) [13], MacRae J. et al. (2014) [16], and Vaux E. et al. (2013) [27], is shown in blue.
Jcm 12 05946 g007
Table 1. Characteristics of included randomized clinical trial.
Table 1. Characteristics of included randomized clinical trial.
First AuthorPublication YearOriginStudy DesignContextSample SizeInterventionsProtocolFollow-Up (Months)Outcomes
Experimental
Group		Control
Group		Experimental GroupControl
Group
MacRae J. et al. [13]2012CanadaRCTCenter140BHStandard needlingSpecifiedNot specified12➀ ➁ ➂ ➄
MacRae J. et al. [16]2014CanadaRCTCenter139BHStandard needlingSpecifiedNot specified19.2 vs. 17.2➄ ➇ ➈ ➉
Peralta R. et al. [19]2022PortugalRCTMulticentric172MuSTBH and RL SpecifiedSpecified12➃ ➄ ➈ ➉
Struthers J. et al. [26]2010United KingdomRCTCenter56BHTraditional RL SpecifiedNot specified6 ➀ ➁ ➂ ➃ ➄ ➇
Vaux E. et al. [27]2013United KingdomRCTCenter127BHUsual practiceSpecifiedNot specified12➀ ➁ ➂ ➃ ➄ ➈ ➉
Chan M. et al. [28]2014USACCTCenter83BHRLSpecifiedNot specified12➄ ➈
Note: ➀ pain; ➁ hematoma; ➂ bleeding time; ➃ aneurism formation/development; ➄ bacteremia related to vascular access; ➇ thrombosis; ➈ AVF survival; ➉ number of interventions. Abbreviations: RCT: randomized clinical trial; CCT: controlled clinical trial; BH: buttonhole; MuST: multiple single cannulation technique; RL: rope ladder.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Peralta, R.; Sousa, L.; Cristovão, A.F. Cannulation Technique of Vascular Access in Hemodialysis and the Impact on the Arteriovenous Fistula Survival: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 5946. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12185946

AMA Style

Peralta R, Sousa L, Cristovão AF. Cannulation Technique of Vascular Access in Hemodialysis and the Impact on the Arteriovenous Fistula Survival: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2023; 12(18):5946. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12185946

Chicago/Turabian Style

Peralta, Ricardo, Luís Sousa, and António Filipe Cristovão. 2023. "Cannulation Technique of Vascular Access in Hemodialysis and the Impact on the Arteriovenous Fistula Survival: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" Journal of Clinical Medicine 12, no. 18: 5946. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12185946

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop