Table 2. Summary of parameters regarding vascular access choice for elderly ESRD patients who initiate dialysis with a catheter.

Vascular Access Outcome	Fistula First Assumption	Current Study Findings vs Fistula First
Likelihood of access to be unsuccessful for dialysis use: AVF: 51% AVG: 45%	Most AVFs will eventually be successfully used for dialysis	Contradictory—Among elderly HD patients, a higher proportion of new AVFs vs AVGs are not successfully used for dialysis within 6 months (adjusted OR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.73-1.99)
Interventions to make vascular access functional: AVF: 42.5% AVG: 23.5%	Most AVFs will be successfully used for dialysis without an intervention	Contradictory—An intervention to achieve successful use for dialysis was required more frequently in patients with an AVF vs those with an AVG (OR, 2.66; 95% CI 2.26-3.12)
Access abandonment in 1st year after initial use: AVF: 18% AVG: 24%	Once they are successfully used for dialysis, AVFs have a lower failure rate than AVGs	Consistent—Among elderly HD patients, AVFs had a lower likelihood than AVGs of failing within one year of successful use (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.62-0.83)
Frequency of access interventions required in 1st year after initial use: AVF: 2.35 AVG: 3.12	AVFs require fewer interventions than AVGs to maintain patency for HD	Consistent—AVFs required fewer interventions than AVGs (RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.69-0.81)
Median duration of catheter dependence: AVF: 3 mo AVG: 1 mo	Placement of more AVFs will decrease catheter dependence	Contradictory—Patients receiving an AVF had a 2-month longer catheter dependence prior to successful use as compared to AVGs (p <0.001)

AVF = Arteriovenous Fistula; AVG = Arteriovenous Graft; HD = Hemodialysis; OR = Odds Ratio; RR = Relative Risk; CI = Confidence Interval; ESRD, end-stage renal disease