Comparing Catheters to Fistulas in Older Patients Starting Hemodialysis (ACCESS HD)
Authors:
- 22 June 2026
- journal article
- Published by Wolters Kluwer Health in Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
Abstract
Background: Fistulas are the preferred form of vascular access and historically, have been recommended by guidelines because they were associated with improved clinical outcomes and costs. However, there has never been a randomized comparison of catheters to fistulas and the evidence on which recommendations were based is observational with potential for bias. Methods: A pilot randomized controlled trial was conducted in 12 hemodialysis centers in Canada and Australia. Individuals aged 55 years and older who started hemodialysis using a tunneled or non-tunneled central venous catheter for vascular access were randomized to an attempt at fistula creation or continued use of a tunneled, central venous hemodialysis catheter. The primary outcome was feasibility, as measured by the proportion of eligible patients who consented to randomization and the proportion of patients randomized to the fistula group who underwent fistula placement within 90 days. Secondary outcomes included invasive access-related procedures, hospitalizations, access-related infections, tissue plasminogen activator usage, and death. Results: A total of 1287 patients were screened and 67 patients underwent randomization. A total of 25% of eligible patients agreed to randomization and 71% randomized to the fistula arm underwent fistula placement within 90 days. The most common reason patients declined to participate in the trial was that they preferred to continue to dialyze with their catheter. Patients randomized to fistulas had nominally more access-related interventions, hospitalizations, and bacteremia (the majority of which were catheter-related), while the catheter group experienced greater reliance on thrombolytic therapy. Conclusions: Findings from this trial suggest that conducting a definitive randomized trial of fistulas versus catheters is not feasible in the current climate. There was no signal of harm associated with randomization to the catheter strategy and most outcomes favored the catheter group. Patients exhibited strong preferences regarding choice of vascular access.Keywords
Funding Information
- Canadian Institutes of Health Research (MOP-142342)
- Kidney Foundation of Canada Health Research Grant (KFOC190009)
This publication has 19 references indexed in Scilit:
- Exploring kidney dialysis costs in the United States: a scoping reviewJournal of Medical Economics, 2024
- Epidemiology of haemodialysis outcomesNature Reviews Nephrology, 2022
- Arteriovenous Fistula Maturation, Functional Patency, and Intervention RatesJAMA Surgery, 2021
- Quantifying The Costs of Creating and Maintaining Hemodialysis Access in An All-Payer Rate-Controlled Health SystemAnnals of Vascular Surgery, 2021
- KDOQI Clinical Practice Guideline for Vascular Access: 2019 UpdateAmerican Journal of Kidney Diseases, 2020
- A randomized controlled trial and cost-effectiveness analysis of early cannulation arteriovenous grafts versus tunneled central venous catheters in patients requiring urgent vascular access for hemodialysisJournal of Vascular Surgery, 2017
- ACCESS HD pilot: A randomised feasibility trial Comparing Catheters with fistulas in Elderly patientS Starting haemodialysisBMJ Open, 2016
- Fistula-first and catheter-last: fading certainties and growing doubtsNephrology Dialysis Transplantation, 2013
- CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trialsBMJ, 2010
- Cost analysis of ongoing care of patients with end-stage renal disease: The impact of dialysis modality and dialysis accessAmerican Journal of Kidney Diseases, 2002