Autogenous versus prosthetic vascular access for hemodialysis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

ObjectivesThe autogenous arteriovenous access for chronic hemodialysis is recommended over the prosthetic access because of its longer lifespan. However, more than half of the United States dialysis patients receive a prosthetic access. We conducted a systematic review to summarize the best available evidence comparing the two accesses types in terms of patient-important outcomes.MethodsWe searched electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science and SCOPUS) and included randomized controlled trials and controlled cohort studies. We pooled data for each outcome using a random effects model to estimate the relative risk (RR) and its associated 95% confidence interval (CI). We estimated inconsistency caused by true differences between studies using the I2 statistic.ResultsEighty-three studies, of which 80 were nonrandomized, met eligibility criteria. Compared with the prosthetic access, the autogenous access was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of death (RR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.67-0.86; I2 = 48%, 27 studies) and access infection (RR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.11-0.31; I2 = 93%, 43 studies), and a nonsignificant reduction in the risk of postoperative complications (hematoma, bleeding, pseudoaneurysm and steal syndrome, RR 0.73; 95% CI, 0.48-1.16; I2 = 65%, 31 studies) and length of hospitalization (pooled weighted mean difference –3.8 days; 95% CI, –7.8 to 0.2; P = .06). The autogenous access also had better primary and secondary patency at 12 and 36 months.ConclusionLow-quality evidence from inconsistent studies with limited protection against bias shows that autogenous access for chronic hemodialysis is superior to prosthetic access.