Comparison of ultrasound scan blood flow measurement versus other forms of surveillance in the thrombosis rate of hemodialysis access: A systemic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The benefit of access flow surveillance in preventing vascular access thrombosis and failure remains controversial, as many randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have failed to demonstrate consistent results. The aim of this study was to perform a meta-analysis including newly published RCTs with a subgroup analysis for arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs) and arteriovenous grafts (AVGs).

METHODS: A systematic review of the available literature was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. An electronic search was conducted using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases of RCTs conducted from 1970 to 2017 that involved access flow surveillance. As a result, 9 RCTs met our criteria. The control group was defined by indirect and various surveillance methods such as dynamic venous pressure measurement and physical examination. Conversely, the interventional group was defined as a noninvasive duplex ultrasound scan (USS) or ultrasound dilution that directly measured the flow of vascular access.

RESULTS: The studies included 990 patients comprising 658 native AVFs and 332 AVGs. The prevalence of diabetes was 29.3%and 30.5% in the interventional and control groups, respectively. The estimated overall pooled risk ratio (RR) of thrombosis was 0.782 [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.553-1.107; P = .17], favoring interventional group, although this was not statistically significant. In the subgroup analysis, the pooled RR of thrombosis was .562 (95% CI, 0.346-0.915; P = .02) for AVFs, which significantly favored the interventional group. Conversely, the pooled RR for AVGs was 1.104 (95% CI, 0.672-1.816; P = .70).

CONCLUSION: The surveillance method to measure access flow through USS showed a significant benefit for reducing thrombosis in AVFs. The result encourages adherence to the current guidelines for AVFs. However, no benefit was found regarding AVGs. Recent guidelines with a "one-size-fits-all" approach may be revised to a "tailored-to-risk" approach.