English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Data are presented from the third combined vascular and peritoneal dialysis access audit. In 2014, 53 centres in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (out of 62) returned data on first access from 4,339 incident haemodialysis (HD) patients and 1,090 incident peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients. Of the 5,429 incident patients, 20.1% started dialysis on PD, 27.8% started with an arteriovenous fistula (AVF), 1.0% with an arteriovenous graft (AVG), 27.1% on a tunnelled line (TL) and 24.0% on a non-tunnelled line (NTL). Older patients (565 years) were more likely to start haemodialysis using AVF compared to their younger counterparts (36.2% vs. 32.8%). Thirteen of the nineteen centres (68%) using the physician led percutaneous insertion technique had over 20% of their incident patients starting on PD when compared to only seven out of fourteen centres (50%) which used single technique (open surgical or laparoscopic) for their PD catheter insertion. Wide variations were apparent between centres for use of AVF as the first haemodialysis access ranging from 10–54%. Eight of the 49 centres were achieving close to the 65% target for AV fistula in their incident patients. Length of time known to nephrology services and likelihood of commencing dialysis using either an AVF or a PD catheter are strongly associated. Patients who were known to a nephrologist for over one year were more likely to start dialysis with AVF, as compared to those who were referred between 90–365 days (39.2% vs. 24.6%). Similarly, patients who were known to a nephrologist between 90 days and one year were more likely to start on PD when compared to patients who were referred &lt;90 days prior to dialysis start (26.9% vs. 9.1%). By comparison, amongst the late presenters, only 3.5% had first access documented as an AVF and 87.3% started dialysis on either a tunnelled line or a non-tunnelled line. Initial surgical assessment was a key determinant of the likelihood of AVF formation. Of the incident patients known to renal services for longer than three months and in those assessed by a surgeon at least three months prior to starting dialysis, 71.4% started dialysis with an AVF whereas of those who were not seen by a surgeon only 10.8% did. Thirty one of the 38 centres were 2 or 3 standard deviations below the 85% target for prevalent haemodialysis patients with an AV fistula. For centres returning data on one-year peritoneal dialysis outcomes, the majority of centres (28/32) maintained 550% of patients on PD at one year, having censored for transplantation. This report demonstrates wide variations in practice between centres across several domains in the provision of dialysis access and further work will be required to understand the underlying reasons.

the nephron journals/nephron journals

UK Renal Registry 18th Annual Report: Chapter 11 2014 Multisite Dialysis Access Audit in England, Northern Ireland and Wales and 2013 PD One Year Follow-up: National and Centre-specific Analyses