ArticleClinical kidney journal2024
Validation of arteriovenous access stage (AVAS) classification: a prospective, international multicentre study.
Article in Clinical kidney journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04796558 (Validation of Arterio Venous Access Stage Classification by Using Machine Learning in Prediction of Vascular Access Creation and Uninterrupted Use of the Vascular Access for Dialysis), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Validation of Arterio Venous Access Stage Classification by Using Machine Learning in Prediction of Vascular Access Creation and Uninterrupted Use of the Vascular Access for Dialysis
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Do fistula flow rate and fistula location have any effects on heart failure developing in patients with arteriovenous fistula?BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2025Article
- Machine learning validation of the AVAS classification compared to ultrasound mapping in a multicentre study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The arteriovenous access stage (AVAS) classification provides evaluation of upper extremity vessels for vascular access (VA) suitability. It divides patients into classes within three main groups: suitable for native fistula (AVAS1) or prosthetic graft (AVAS2), and patients not suitable for conventional native or prosthetic VA (AVAS3). We validated this system on a prospective dataset. Methods: A prospective, international observational study (NCT04796558) involved 11 centres from 8 countries. Patient recruitment was from March 2021 to January 2024. Demographic data, risk factors, vessels parameters, VA types, AVAS class and early VA failure were collected. Percentage agreement was used to assess predictive ability of AVAS (comparison of AVAS and created VA) and consistency of AVAS assessment between evaluators. Pearson's Chi-squared test was used for comparison of early failure rate of conventional (predicted by AVAS) and unconventional (not predicted by AVAS) VA. Results: From 1034 enrolled patients, 935 had arteriovenous fistula or graft, 99 patients did not undergo VA creation due opting for alternative renal replacement therapies, experiencing health complications, death or non-compliance. AVAS1 had 91.2%, AVAS2 7.2% and AVAS3 1.6% of patients. Agreement between evaluators was 89%. The most frequently created VAs were radial-cephalic (46%) and brachial-cephalic (27%) fistulae. The accuracy of AVAS versus created access was 79%. In comparison, VA predicted by clinicians versus created access was 62.1%. Inaccuracy of AVAS prediction was more common with higher AVAS classes, and the most common reason for inaccuracy was creation of distal VA despite less favourable anatomy (17%). Patients with unconventional VA had higher early failure rate than patients with conventional VA (20% vs 9.3%, respectively, Conclusion: AVAS is effective in predicting VA creation, but overall accuracy is reduced at higher AVAS classes when the complexity of decision-making increases and proximal vessels require preservation. When AVAS was followed by clinicians, early failure was significantly decreased.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.