title: [Vascular access in the elderly: AVF vs CVC. A comment].
abstract: The aging population starting hemodialysis treatment raises the question as to which is the best vascular access in an older patient with multiple complications. The center effect is an important element in the choice of a vascular access, as shown by the DOPPS data and by a recent audit held in Lombardy. However, other data show an increase in the use of permanent CVCs in the last years and other factors must be taken into account in this clinical choice. Also the timing of proposing a vascular access to a patient has changed over the years (see K-DOQI 2006 vs 2000). Most of the literature agrees on the strategy of a global clinical evaluation of the patient to decide when to place a vascular access and which type of access to use. Native and prosthetic fistulas are considered superior to CVCs although the latter have certain advantages in selected patients, such as those with severe cardiac problems. The nephrologist has a major role in vascular access management as part of a team made up also by a vascular surgeon and an interventional radiologist. Only in a center where both native and prosthetic fistulas can be constructed and permanent CVCs be placed can a nephrologist choose the most appropriate vascular access for individual patients after evaluation not only of their renal function but their cardiovascular risk as well.
authors.affiliation: U.O. Nefrologia e Dialisi, IRCCS Multimedica Holding S.p.A., Via Milanese 300, Sesto San Giovanni, MI, Italy. silvio.bertoli@multimedica.it
authors.forename: S V
authors.initials: SV
authors.lastname: Bertoli
authors.forename: C
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Musetti
mesh_terms: D000368:Aged; D001166:Arteriovenous Shunt, Surgical; D002405:Catheterization, Central Venous; D002408:Catheters, Indwelling; D006801:Humans; D018579:Patient Selection; D006435:Renal Dialysis / Q000379:methods*