Table 3. Access failure rates and vascular access surveillance practice trends.
| Primary failure rates of access (%) | Is VAS routinely practiced in dialysis units | Who is trained as manpower for VAS | The preferred VAS method | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AVF failure | TCC failure | Yes/no/not sure | Technicians | Nurses | Doctors | Serial clinical examination of AV access | KT/V or URR measurements | Routine ultrasound of AV access | Any other technique | |
| Bangladesh | 5 to 10 | 5 to 10 | No | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Brunei | 19.4 | – | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No |
| India | 10 to 20 | <10 | Not sure | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Not sure | No |
| Indonesia | – | – | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
| Malaysia | 30 | 10 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Transonic |
| Myanmar | 10 to 20 | 10 to 15 | No* | – | No | No | No | No | No | |
| Nepal | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Pakistan | 12.6 | 48 | Not sure | – | – | – | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
| Philippines | <3 | <3 | No* | – | – | – | – | – | ||
| Sri Lanka | 8 | – | Not sure | No | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | No | No |
| Vietnam | – | – | Not sure | No | No | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No |
| Hong Kong | 10 | 5 to 10 | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No |
| Singapore | 20 | – | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Not sure | Yes, BTM by fresenius |
| Taiwan | 24 | 10 to 20 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Ultrasound dilution method |
| Thailand | 30 | 45 | No* | – | – | – | No | No | No | |
VAS: vascular access surveillance; AVF: arteriovenous fistula; TCC: tunneled-cuffed catheter; KT/V: number used to quantify haemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis treatment adequacy; URR: urea reduction ratio.
Group 1 countries—bold.