SynthesisBMC nephrology2025
Mortality outcomes associated with vascular access types in hemodialysis for ESRD: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC nephrology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The effect of arteriovenous fistula longevity preservation exercise program combined with video-assisted patient education on fistula maturation for maintenance hemodialysis patients.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Trial
- Progress on the related mechanisms of vascular calcification in autogenous arteriovenous fistula in hemodialysis patients.Renal failure · 2026Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHemodialysis is a common renal replacement therapy for patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). The common types of vascular access mainly include arteriovenous fistula (AVF), arteriovenous graft (AVG), and central venous catheter (CVC). However, the association between different access types and all-cause mortality remains controversial. Accordingly, this study aims to systematically assess the effect of different vascular access on mortality among hemodialysis patients with ESRD, thereby providing evidence-based recommendations for optimal vascular access strategies in clinical settings.
methodsThe systematic searches in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were employed to determine the cohort study or randomized controlled trials comparing the effects of AVF, AVG, or CVC on mortality in patients undergoing hemodialysis. A total of 33 studies were included.
resultsMeta-analysis results showed the following: (1) All-cause mortality: Compared to AVF, CVCs significantly increased all-cause mortality. AVGs also increased all-cause mortality. (2) Cardiovascular events mortality: Compared to AVF, CVCs and AVGs showed a trend toward higher cardiovascular mortality, but the differences were not statistically significant. (3) In-hospital mortality: Compared to patients without vascular access, AVF was associated with increased in-hospital mortality. (4) Infection-related mortality: Compared to AVF, CVCs significantly increased infection-related mortality.
conclusionCompared with CVCs and AVGs, AVF remains the lowest mortality risk. Early planning and education regarding vascular access are essential to improve long-term outcomes in hemodialysis patients.
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.