Mortality risk associated with permanent central venous catheter use in the oldest-old population: a nationwide cohort study

Joo Un Park; Chang Min Park; Do Hyoung Kim; Hyangkyoung Kim; Byung Ha Chung; Hyung Seok Lee; Sang Jun Park; Min-ho Kim; Hoon Suk Park

doi:10.3904/kjim.2025.343

Korean J Intern Med > Volume 41(5); 2026 > Article

Park, Park, Kim, Kim, Chung, Lee, Park, Kim, and Park: Mortality risk associated with permanent central venous catheter use in the oldest-old population: a nationwide cohort study

Original Article

Nephrology

The Korean Journal of Internal Medicine 2026;41(5):927-939.

Published online: September 1, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3904/kjim.2025.343

Mortality risk associated with permanent central venous catheter use in the oldest-old population: a nationwide cohort study

Joo Un Park¹, Chang Min Park², Do Hyoung Kim³, Hyangkyoung Kim⁴, Byung Ha Chung¹, Hyung Seok Lee⁵, Sang Jun Park⁶, Min-ho Kim⁷

, Hoon Suk Park¹

¹Division of Nephrology, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea

²Division of Nephrology, Department of Internal Medicine, Uijeongbu St. Mary’s Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea

³Division of Nephrology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kangnam Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

⁴Division of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Ewha Womans University Medical Center, Ewha Womans University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

⁵Division of Nephrology, Department of Internal Medicine, Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University College of Medicine, Anyang, Korea

⁶Division of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Ulsan University Hospital, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Ulsan, Korea

⁷Ewha Medical Data Organization, Ewha Womans University Seoul Hospital, Seoul, Korea

Correspondence to: Min-ho Kim, Ph.D. Ewha Medical Data Organization, Ewha Womans University Seoul Hospital, 260 Gonghang-daero, Gangseo-gu, Seoul 07804, Korea, Tel: +82-2-6986-1869, Fax: +82-2-6986-5802, E-mail: mino-kim@naver.com, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4909-2308

Correspondence to: Hoon Suk Park, M.D., Ph.D. Division of Nephrology, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 222 Banpo-daero, Seocho-gu, Seoul 06591, Korea, Tel: +82-2-1588-1511, Fax: +82-2-594-7230, E-mail: cttailor@catholic.ac.kr, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1102-5460

Received October 2, 2025 Revised April 9, 2026 Accepted May 11, 2026

(open-access):

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Background/Aims

Owing to aging-related factors, arteriovenous access (AV) is difficult to establish in older patients; central venous catheter (CVC) access is used instead. However, evidence on long-term outcomes of permanent vascular access types in the oldest-old adults (≥ 80 yr) is lacking. We aimed to compare mortality by vascular access type in older Korean patients undergoing hemodialysis.

Methods

This nationwide retrospective cohort study included 79,286 adult patients who initiated maintenance hemodialysis between 2012 and 2021, identified from the Korean National Health Insurance Service database. Patients were categorized by permanent vascular access type (AV fistula [AVF], AV graft [AVG], or CVC). Kaplan–Meier survival analysis and Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess mortality across vascular access types. Analyses were stratified by age group.

Results

CVC access was associated with the highest mortality. Compared with AVF use, CVC use was associated with more than a threefold increase in mortality risk (aHR 3.54; 95% CI, 3.43–3.65). Though attenuated, the CVC use-associated mortality risk remained significantly elevated in octogenarians and nonagenarians (aHR 3.30; 95% CI, 3.14–3.47 and aHR 3.18; 95% CI, 2.65–3.82, respectively). Compared with AVG use, CVC use remained consistently associated with elevated mortality risk across age groups.

Conclusions

CVC use as permanent access was associated with increased mortality, even among the oldest-old. Advanced age should be regarded as a clinical consideration rather than a definitive contraindication to AV access. Our findings support the need for individualized clinical decision-making, even in the oldest-old population.

Keywords: Arteriovenous shunt, surgical; Central venous catheters; Aged; Renal dialysis; Mortality

Graphical abstract

INTRODUCTION

With the significant increase in the global prevalence of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) in recent decades, the age distribution of the patient population has shifted toward older adults [1–3]. Although hemodialysis is commonly selected for older patients [1,4], establishing and maintaining vascular access in this population remains challenging. According to the 2024 Korean Renal Data System report, patients with ESKD aged ≥ 65 years comprise 57.2% of the national dialysis population [4], underscoring the need for an appropriate vascular access method in this group.

Given the distinctive age-related physiological and clinical characteristics, personalized vascular access strategies are essential. The 2019 Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative (KDOQI) guidelines recommend patient-centered strategies, prioritizing arteriovenous access (AV; arteriovenous fistula [AVF] or graft [AVG]) over central venous catheter (CVC) access [5]. However, comorbidities, such as diabetes mellitus (DM) and peripheral vascular disease (PVD), often complicate AV access creation and hinder AVF maturation in older adults [2,6–8]. Many patients may die before the long-term survival benefits of AV access are realized [9–12]. Considering these clinical limitations, the KDOQI guidelines suggest long-term CVC use in certain circumstances. CVC access remains widely used and is often considered the most appropriate permanent alternative to AV access, especially in oldest-old adults [8,10,13,14]. Nonetheless, the appropriateness of long-term CVC use in this population remains controversial, given its well-established links to central venous stenosis, infection, and increased mortality [15–18].

As randomized controlled trials are not feasible owing to ethical and clinical constraints, we designed an observational study using real-world data from the National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) database, which provides comprehensive clinical and mortality information. We aimed to evaluate the long-term mortality risk associated with CVC use as permanent vascular access in older hemodialysis patients—particularly octogenarians (aged ≥ 80 yr) and nonagenarians (aged ≥ 90 yr)—using a large-scale national cohort.

METHODS

Data Sources

This retrospective cohort study was conducted using data from the Korean NHIS, a government-operated single-payer system that provides universal health coverage. The NHIS maintains a comprehensive database comprising demographic characteristics, International Classification of Disease, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) diagnosis codes, procedure codes, prescriptions, and healthcare utilization records [19].

Data collection and publication were performed in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations, and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Ewha Womans University Hospital, Seoul, Korea (No. EUMC 2023-03-040). Owing to the use of de-identified and routinely collected data, the requirement for informed consent was waived.

Participants

This study included adult patients aged ≥ 18 years who initiated maintenance hemodialysis between 1 January, 2012 and 31 December, 2021. The inclusion criteria were: (1) ESKD diagnosis (ICD-10 code: N18), (2) registration for maintenance dialysis (V001), or (3) receipt of outpatient hemodialysis procedures (O7020, O7021, or O9991) for ≥ 3 consecutive months.

The index date was defined as the first date of vascular access creation. The vascular access type was categorized as AV access—further subclassified as AVF (O2011, O2012, or O2081) or AVG (O2082)—and CVC (O7011–O7018).

Patients were classified into the following groups: (1) AVF: those with AVF as initial access or after CVC use; (2) AVG: those with AVG as initial access or after CVC use; and (3) CVC: those who remained catheter-dependent without subsequent AV access. Patients who underwent AVF and AVG creation on the same day were classified into the AVG group, assuming that graft placement was made following AVF failure.

Measurements and Variables

The primary exposure variable was the type of permanent vascular access used during maintenance hemodialysis (AVF, AVG, or CVC). Older age was defined as ≥ 65 years. Patients were further stratified into four age subgroups: 65–69, 70–79, 80–89, and ≥ 90 years, to allow a more detailed assessment of outcomes across the aging spectrum, particularly within the “young-old” population while maintaining adequate sample size within each age subgroup. This approach was informed by age-stratified analyses used in previous large cohort studies [20,21].

The baseline characteristics included age, sex, and comorbidities identified using ICD-10 codes: DM, hypertension, coronary artery disease (CAD), cerebrovascular accident (CVA), and PVD (see Supplementary Table 1 for code details). Data on intravenous antibiotic use (vancomycin, teicoplanin, and cefazolin) and catheter replacement were also collected. Analyses were stratified by sex and DM status.

Outcomes

The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. To minimize lead-time bias from delays between AV access surgery and hemodialysis initiation, survival time was measured from the date of hemodialysis initiation. Follow-up continued until death or censoring at the earliest occurrence of transition to peritoneal dialysis (procedure codes: O7061, O7062, O7071, and O7072), kidney transplantation (ICD-10 code: Z940), or the end of the study period (31 December, 2021). Supplementary analyses were conducted to assess complication-free survival, specifically focusing on catheter-related infections and dysfunction in the CVC group.

Statistical analysis

The baseline characteristics and demographics were summarized by vascular access type. Categorical and continuous variables were presented as frequencies with percentages and means, respectively. Differences were assessed using one-way analysis of variance and chi-square test for continuous and categorical variables, respectively.

Survival by vascular access type was analyzed using the Kaplan–Meier method, and comparisons, via the log-rank test [22]. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate mortality hazard ratio (HR) and confidence interval (CI) for CVC access, using AV access as reference [23]. Although the mortality risk was not perfectly proportional over time, the Kaplan–Meier survival curves remained separated during follow-up. Therefore, the Cox proportional hazards model was used to provide a summary estimate of the overall HR. This analysis was repeated with AVF and AVG as the reference. Multivariate models were adjusted for age, sex, DM status, and presence of hypertension, CAD, PVD, and CVA.

Survival analyses were conducted in each age subgroup to evaluate whether the association between the vascular access type and mortality differed by age. Additional subgroup analyses were performed to assess the effect of the vascular access type on mortality by age, sex, and DM status. To evaluate catheter-related complications, complication-free survival was analyzed using the Kaplan–Meier method, with death treated as censored data. All statistical analyses were performed using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA).

RESULTS

Patient characteristics

Of 79,286 patients who initiated maintenance hemodialysis, over half (59.0%, n = 46,774) were aged ≥ 65 years, and 17.4% (n = 13,856) were aged ≥ 80 years (approximately 51% female). When categorized by the vascular access type, 53,229 (67.1%), 15,164 (19.1%), and 10,893 (13.7%) patients were in the AVF, AVG, and CVC groups, respectively. The CVC group had the highest mean age (73.98 ± 12.64 yr), proportion of female patients, and CAD and CVA prevalences, and the lowest prevalence of hypertension. The AVG group had the highest DM prevalence. The mean follow-up duration was 3.22 ± 2.32 years, and 33,873 (42.7%) deaths occurred (Table 1). CVC use increased with age (6.7%, 8.8%, 15.4%, 29.3%, and 53.6% at < 65, 65–69, 70–79, 80–89, and ≥ 90 yr, respectively).

Survival analysis

Kaplan–Meier analysis revealed consistently lower survival rates in the CVC group versus the AV group across age groups (Fig. 1). This pattern remained in all patients, including in octogenarians and nonagenarians, when the AV group was stratified into the AVF and AVG subgroups (Fig. 2). The survival curves remained separated throughout the follow-up.

Mortality risk associated with CVC use

In the overall cohort, CVC use was associated with a 3.4-fold increased risk of all-cause mortality, compared with AV access (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 3.41; 95% CI, 3.32–3.50; p < 0.001); this survival disadvantage remained robust even among nonagenarians (aHR 2.99; 95% CI, 2.57–3.47; p < 0.001). Although clinical covariates, such as sex, presence of hypertension, and DM status, showed varying degrees of association with mortality across age subgroups—including a paradoxically protective effect of hypertension in the 65–79-year age subgroup—CVC use remained associated with mortality in all multivariable models (Supplementary Table 2, 3).

Subgroup and access type comparisons

When AVF and AVG were used as separate reference groups, the CVC group consistently exhibited significantly higher mortality rates across age subgroups (all p < 0.001; Table 2). Compared with the AVF group, the CVC group demonstrated more than a threefold increased risk of mortality in all age subgroups; however, the HRs gradually declined with advancing age. In contrast, the survival benefit of AVG use over CVC use was less pronounced than that of AVF use over CVC use but remained relatively stable across the age subgroups. Regarding absolute survival measures, among octogenarians, the 2-year survival probability was approximately 60% and 52% in the AVF and AVG groups, respectively (versus 20% in the CVC group). Among nonagenarians, the corresponding survival rates were approximately 55% and 41% in the AVF and AVG groups, respectively (versus 15% in the CVC group). By 5 years, the survival rates among nonagenarians converged to approximately 10% and 8% in the AVF and AVG groups, respectively, while remaining markedly lower in the CVC group. Consequently, the AVF and AVG groups maintained a survival advantage over the CVC group in the long term, whereas the difference between the AVF and AVG groups reduced with advancing age.

Cox regression analyses stratified by age, DM status, and sex showed that CVC use remained associated with a high mortality risk across all subgroups. Even in the subgroup with the lowest relative risk—nonagenarian female patients with DM—CVC use remained associated with higher mortality, compared with AVF (aHR 2.61; 95% CI, 2.00–3.42) and AVG (aHR 2.41; 95% CI, 1.76–3.31). A sex-specific risk crossover occurred at the age of 70 years, where the relative risk became more pronounced in male patients than in female patients; apart from this, no other consistent trend or unidirectional pattern was observed across the strata (all p < 0.001; Table 3).

Supplementary analysis

The incidence of catheter-related complications in the CVC group was highest during the first 3 months after dialysis initiation. The Kaplan–Meier curves showed a steep early increase in catheter-related infections and dysfunction within the initial period. Although the rate of incidence slowed significantly thereafter, complications continued to develop at a more gradual but persistent pace throughout the follow-up period, without reaching a complete plateau. This trend was consistently observed across all age subgroups (Fig. 3).

DISCUSSION

In the present study, survival outcomes were evaluated in approximately 79,000 South Korean patients receiving maintenance hemodialysis using NHIS data with up to 10 years of follow-up. The patients were categorized by long-term vascular access type. Age-stratified analyses consistently showed higher mortality associated with CVC use versus AVF and AVG use. Specifically, the CVC group demonstrated more than threefold and twofold higher risk of mortality, compared with the AVF and AVG groups, respectively. These associations persisted after adjusting for age, sex, DM status, and the presence of hypertension, CAD, CVA, and PVD. To our knowledge, this is the first large-scale study on long-term survival outcomes by permanent vascular access type in patients undergoing hemodialysis across age groups, with specific age-stratified analyses of oldest-old individuals.

Current clinical guidelines recommend AVF as the preferred vascular access type for hemodialysis and discourage CVC use [5,24]. Numerous studies have shown higher mortality among patients initiating dialysis with CVCs versus AVFs [15,16,25,26]. However, findings from older populations are inconsistent. One study showed no significant mortality difference by the vascular access type in patients aged ≥ 65 years [27], whereas others suggested that CVCs are ideal for patients aged ≥ 80 years owing to technical challenges of AV access creation and limited life expectancy [8,13,14]. Nonetheless, most studies focused on the vascular access type at dialysis initiation rather than over long-term treatment course. Beyond the initiation phase, studies have assessed long-term outcomes. A study limited to patients on dialysis for at least 1 year showed a 3.43-fold higher mortality risk with CVC use versus AVF use, although only 5% of the patients used catheters [28]. Yeh et al. [29] followed up 738 patients undergoing hemodialysis aged 40–79 years for up to 10 years, categorizing them into three groups: AVF/AVG alone, AVF/AVG and catheters, and catheters alone. Compared with AVF/AVG use, the use of catheters alone was associated with a 3.23-fold higher mortality risk, whereas using both access types was associated with a 1.45-fold higher risk. Similarly, a 7-year observational cohort study conducted by Venegas-Ramírez et al. showed that tunneled CVC use was associated with a 2.38-fold increased mortality risk, compared with AVF use [30]. Our study builds on and extends this evidence by studying a large, nationally representative cohort with up to 10 years of follow-up. The findings showed that CVC use was associated with increased mortality risk, compared with AVF and AVG use, despite adjusting for demographic and clinical covariates. This association persisted among oldest-old individuals, including octogenarians and nonagenarians. Although previous studies have identified risks associated with catheter use at dialysis initiation [15,16,31], our study suggests that the association between CVC use and higher mortality was not limited to the initiation period but remained evident during long-term dialysis, including among the oldest-old individuals. These findings suggest that the association between AV access and more favorable survival may persist with advancing age and that AVF or AVG may remain a reasonable alternative to long-term catheter dependence when clinically feasible.

Patient-level factors, such as age, presence of cardiovascular disease, sex, and DM status, are well-established predictors of mortality in hemodialysis populations [32–34]. These associations were confirmed in our multivariable models, though attenuated in some age-stratified analyses. Notably, presence of hypertension was associated with decreased mortality, particularly in the 70–79-year group. This may reflect the phenomenon of reverse epidemiology, in which traditional cardiovascular risk factors are paradoxically associated with improved survival in patients on dialysis. Nonetheless, hypertension is well-recognized as a contributor to cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in the general population; thus, these findings should be interpreted cautiously [35,36].

The relationship between sex and mortality in hemodialysis remains controversial. Astor et al. reported that CVC use was associated with substantially higher mortality in male individuals (18.8% with CVC use vs. 10.2% with AVF use), with no effect in female individuals, and comparisons with AVG use yielded inconsistent results [27]. In contrast, in our study, CVC use was consistently associated with significantly higher mortality, compared with AVF and AVG use, in both sexes. Moreover, we observed an age-dependent reversal: female individuals demonstrated a higher CVC-associated mortality risk at < 70 years, whereas male individuals exhibited a higher risk at older ages. These discrepancies may not only indicate differences in sample size, racial composition, and study design but also suggest that vascular access outcomes are influenced by age and sex.

In the analyses stratified by age, sex, and DM status, the relative HR associated with CVC use was attenuated in certain subgroups but remained significantly elevated overall. For example, female nonagenarians with DM using CVCs exhibited more than a 2.4-fold increased mortality risk, compared with those using AVFs or AVGs. This contrasts with the findings of DeSilva et al. [26], regarding no significant survival advantage of AV use over CVC use among patients aged ≥ 90 years, though their small sample size (n = 280) possibly limited statistical power. In our study, CVC use remained significantly associated with higher mortality across age groups, despite adjusting for covariates.

Although catheter use is clearly associated with increased mortality in patients receiving hemodialysis, the underlying mechanisms remain complex and are likely multifaceted. Catheter-related infections [37–40] and dysfunction [41,42] are frequently cited as potential mechanisms which may increase infection risk or reduce dialysis adequacy [43,44]. In our study, these complications were most frequent during the first 3 months and continued to develop at a more gradual pace throughout the follow-up period, without reaching a complete plateau. This sustained occurrence might be partly explained by the observation that even a single episode of CVC-related infection can permanently elevate a patient’s baseline mortality risk, which never returns to the baseline level, even after clinical recovery [43]. However, the causal link remains a subject of debate. Notably, previous studies have paradoxically shown that, despite higher catheter dependency in the first 6 months after AVF creation, patients exhibit lower infection and mortality rates, compared with those with AVG access [9,45]. This inconsistency highlights the unclear causal link between catheter use and mortality. Therefore, our findings may reflect the cumulative risk associated with prolonged CVC exposure rather than a direct causal effect of catheter use itself. The differences in survival by the vascular access type may be driven, in part, by selection bias [20,39,46]. Notably, our AV access groups included patients who initially began dialysis with CVCs and later converted to AVF or AVG, which are typically associated with higher mortality [18,28,31,47]. Despite including these higher-risk converters in the AV group, the hazard associated with long-term catheter use remained substantially elevated. To partially mitigate the influence of acute illness at dialysis initiation, we included only the patients who survived and maintained dialysis for at least 3 months. However, because landmark analyses were not performed, the potential influence of early mortality and residual confounding related to underlying clinical conditions cannot be completely excluded. Therefore, although the observed mortality difference cannot be explained solely by patient selection, CVC use in this context may also reflect patients with poorer overall clinical condition. In this regard, catheter use may function not only as an exposure but also as a surrogate marker of higher illness severity. Accordingly, although patient preference, vascular status, comorbidity burden, and overall clinical condition are important determinants of vascular access choice, causality could not be definitively established in this observational study. However, the magnitude and consistency of the association between long-term catheter use and mortality across the age subgroups remain clinically meaningful.

This study focused on the risks associated with long-term CVC use and did not directly compare the survival outcomes between AVF and AVG use. In contrast to DeSilva et al. [21], who reported no significant survival difference between patients using AVF and AVG among those aged ≥ 80 years, our findings demonstrated a consistent survival advantage for patients using AVF across all age subgroups. However, the observed narrowing of this survival gap with advancing age and prolonged follow-up implies that the clinical superiority of AVF may become less pronounced in oldest-old individuals. Despite the statistical advantage of AVF identified in our cohort, the practical challenges associated with AVF in this population—specifically the high rates of maturation failure or delay (30–40%)—cannot be overlooked [48]. Given that the long-term survival benefit gap between AVF and AVG diminishes over time, prioritizing AVG to minimize the duration of CVC exposure may serve as a more pragmatic and reasonable primary alternative for oldest-old individuals, consistent with the strategies proposed in previous literature [21,48].

Ultimately, the discrepancy between our results and those of DeSilva et al. [21] underscores the complexity of vascular access selection in this heterogeneous population and highlights the urgent need for definitive evidence. As noted in a recent review [48], current knowledge is derived exclusively from observational data, and an ongoing randomized controlled trial [49] is investigating this question. Our findings regarding the convergence of survival benefits provide critical baseline data for such future trials and emphasize the importance of a patient-centered approach that balances statistical survival gains against the immediate risks of CVC-related complications.

This study has some limitations. First, given its retrospective nature, causality cannot be established. Second, the NHIS database lacks granular clinical details—such as laboratory results, specific anatomical information of the vascular access, and key indicators of a patient’s baseline status (e.g., insurance type, hospitalization history, and dialysis facility type). The absence of these variables, which reflect socioeconomic status, frailty, and healthcare utilization, prevented full adjustment for residual confounding and selection bias. Consequently, these unmeasured factors may have influenced the strength of the observed associations between the vascular access type and survival. Furthermore, although age was analyzed in the subgroup analyses to explore clinical trends, continuous modeling approaches— such as spline analysis to evaluate potential non-linear relationships between age and mortality—were not performed. Future studies using more granular data may help further clarify this relationship. Third, patient and physician decision-making, which are critical for vascular access selection, could not be captured from the data. Finally, as this study was conducted in a single-race population (Korean), generalizability to diverse populations may be limited.

Despite these limitations, this study has notable strengths. It included one of the largest cohorts to date of oldest-old patients undergoing hemodialysis, with age-stratified modelling to account for heterogeneity across age groups. The dataset used was derived from a reliable nationwide insurance claims system rather than from a single-center cohort. Furthermore, unlike previous studies that primarily focused on vascular access at dialysis initiation, this study evaluated the long-term use of various types of vascular access over a follow-up period of up to 10 years.

In this national cohort study, catheter use as permanent vascular access was associated with up to a five-fold higher risk of mortality, compared with the use of AVF or AVG. Despite adjusting for potential confounders, catheter use remained significantly associated with increased mortality in all age subgroups, including octogenarians and nonagenarians. Based on these findings, the use of CVC as a permanent vascular access should be carefully evaluated even in the oldest-old patients. Advanced age should be regarded as one of several clinical considerations rather than a definitive contraindication to AV access. Therefore, vascular access decisions should be individualized whenever clinically feasible.

KEY MESSAGE

1. In octogenarians and nonagenarians, permanent CVC use was associated with a two- to three-fold higher risk of mortality, compared with AV access.

2. Both AVF and AVG use were associated with better survival, compared with CVC use, suggesting AVG may represent a reasonable alternative for older patients.

3. Advanced age should be regarded as one of several clinical considerations, and individualized decision-making is essential.

Supplementary Information

kjim-2025-343-Supplementary-Table-1.pdf

kjim-2025-343-Supplementary-Table-2.pdf

kjim-2025-343-Supplementary-Table-3.pdf

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the National Health Insurance Service of Korea for providing access to the data used in this study.

CRedit authorship contributions

Joo Un Park: conceptualization, methodology, resources, investigation, data curation, writing - original draft, writing - review & editing; Chang Min Park: conceptualization, methodology, resources, investigation, data curation, formal analysis, validation; Do Hyoung Kim: conceptualization, methodology, resources, investigation, data curation, formal analysis, validation; Hyangkyoung Kim: conceptualization, methodology, resources, investigation, data curation; Byung Ha Chung: conceptualization, methodology, resources, investigation, data curation; Hyung Seok Lee: conceptualization, methodology, resources, investigation, data curation; Sang Jun Park: conceptualization, methodology, resources, investigation, data curation; Min-ho Kim: conceptualization, methodology, resources, investigation, data curation, formal analysis, validation, software; Hoon Suk Park: conceptualization, methodology, validation, writing - review & editing, supervision, project administration

Conflicts of interest

The authors disclose no conflicts.

Funding

This research was supported by a research grant of Korean society of dialysis access. The authors wish to acknowledge the financial support of the Catholic Medical Center Research Foundation made in the program year of 2017.

Figure 1

Kaplan–Meier survival curves stratified by the vascular access type for patients aged (A) < 65, (B) ≥ 65, (C) 65–69, (D) 70–79, (E) 80–89, and (F) ≥ 90 years. The AV group represents a combined cohort of patients in the AVF and AVG groups. AV, arteriovenous access; AVF, arteriovenous fistula; AVG, arteriovenous graft; CVC, central venous catheter.

Figure 2

Kaplan–Meier survival curves of the patients aged (A) 80–89 and (B) ≥ 90 years in the CVC group versus the AVF group and those aged (C) 80–89 and (D) ≥ 90 years in the CVC group versus the AVG group. AVF, arteriovenous fistula; AVG, arteriovenous graft; CVC, central venous catheter.

Figure 3

Kaplan–Meier curves for complication-free survival during maintenance hemodialysis. Time from the index date to (A) catheter-related infection and (B) to documented catheter dysfunction. Survival rate in this figure refers to the probability of remaining free from the specified complications.

Table 1

Baseline characteristics by vascular access type

Characteristic	All (n = 79,286)	AVF group (n = 53,229)	AVG group (n = 15,164)	CVC group (n = 10,893)	p value
Mean age (yr)	66.41 ± 13.57	63.93 ± 13.34	69.68 ± 12.27	73.98 ± 12.64	< 0.001
Age group (yr)					< 0.001
< 65	32,512 (41.0)	25,722 (48.3)	4,622 (30.5)	2,168 (19.9)
≥ 65	46,774 (59.0)	27,507 (51.7)	10,542 (69.5)	8,725 (80.1)
65–69	9,705 (12.2)	7,037 (13.2)	1,814 (12.0)	854 (7.8)
70–79	23,213 (29.3)	14,340 (26.9)	5,291 (34.9)	3,582 (32.9)
80–89	12,893 (16.3)	5,869 (11.6)	3,251 (21.4)	3,773 (34.6)
≥ 90	963 (1.2)	261 (0.5)	186 (1.2)	516 (4.7)
Sex					< 0.001
Male	47,889 (60.4)	33,845 (63.6)	8,229 (54.3)	5,815 (53.4)
Female	31,397 (39.6)	19,384 (36.4)	6,935 (45.7)	5,078 (46.6)
DM	64,882 (81.8)	43,193 (81.2)	13,058 (86.1)	8,631 (79.2)	< 0.001
HTN	76,083 (96.0)	51,223 (96.2)	14,756 (97.3)	10,104 (92.8)	< 0.001
CAD	5,662 (7.1)	3,221 (6.1)	1,335 (8.8)	1,106 (10.2)	< 0.001
CVA	18,525 (23.4)	10,485 (19.7)	4,286 (28.3)	3,754 (34.5)	< 0.001
PVD	32,247 (40.7)	20,835 (39.1)	6,759 (44.6)	4,653 (42.7)	< 0.001
Follow-up duration (y)	3.22 ± 2.32	3.64 ± 2.26	3.03 ± 2.15	1.46 ± 1.94	< 0.001
Death	33,873 (42.7)	17,678 (33.2)	7,654 (50.5)	8,541 (78.4)	< 0.001

Categorical variables are presented as numbers (%). Continuous variables are presented as mean ± standard deviation.

AVF, arteriovenous fistula; AVG, arteriovenous graft; CVC, central venous catheter; DM, diabetes mellitus; HTN, hypertension; CAD, coronary artery disease; CVA, cerebrovascular accident; PVD, peripheral vascular disease.

Table 2

Mortality risk by age subgroup in the Cox models

Age group (y)	Univariate analysis		Multivariate analysis

	Unadjusted HR (95% CI)	p value	Adjusted HR (95% CI)	p value
CVC vs. AVF

AVF	Reference	-	Reference	-

< 65	4.312 (4.045–4.596)	< 0.001	4.402 (4.123–4.700)	< 0.001

65–69	4.612 (4.221–5.038)	< 0.001	4.413 (4.033–4.828)	< 0.001

70–79	3.784 (3.621–3.954)	< 0.001	3.620 (3.461–3.787)	< 0.001

80–89	3.356 (3.197–3.524)	< 0.001	3.300 (3.138–3.471)	< 0.001

≥ 90	3.033 (2.538–3.623)	< 0.001	3.181 (2.651–3.817)	< 0.001

CVC vs. AVG

AVG	Reference	-	Reference	-

< 65	2.347 (2.174–2.535)	< 0.001	2.601 (2.401–2.818)	< 0.001

65–69	2.825 (2.546–3.134)	< 0.001	2.789 (2.511–3.098)	< 0.001

70–79	2.664 (2.531–2.805)	< 0.001	2.633 (2.500–2.773)	< 0.001

80–89	2.619(2.479–2.767)	< 0.001	2.610 (2.469–2.760)	< 0.001

≥ 90	2.416 (1.996–2.925)	< 0.001	2.554 (2.100–3.107)	< 0.001

HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; CVC, central venous catheter; AVF, arteriovenous fistula; AVG, arteriovenous graft.

Table 3

Mortality risk associated with CVC use across age, sex, and DM status in the stratified Cox models

Risk group		Stratified Cox regression

		AVF group as reference		AVG group as reference

		aHR (95% CI)	p value	aHR (95% CI)	p value
65–69 yr

Absence of DM	Male	5.06 (3.93–6.5)	< 0.001	3.45 (2.52–4.74)	< 0.001

	Female	5.72 (4.33–7.54)	< 0.001	4.13 (2.94–5.80)	< 0.001

Presence of DM	Male	4.12 (3.66–4.64)	< 0.001	2.52 (2.19–2.89)	< 0.001

	Female	4.66 (4.01–5.41)	< 0.001	3.01 (2.54–3.58)	< 0.001

70–79 yr

Absence of DM	Male	3.71 (3.29–4.18)	< 0.001	2.81 (2.42–3.25)	< 0.001

	Female	3.47 (3.06–3.93)	< 0.001	2.79 (2.39–3.25)	< 0.001

Presence of DM	Male	3.73 (3.51–3.97)	< 0.001	2.62 (2.44–2.81)	< 0.001

	Female	3.49 (3.25–3.74)	< 0.001	2.60 (2.40–2.81)	< 0.001

80–89 yr

Absence of DM	Male	3.60 (3.20–4.06)	< 0.001	2.80 (2.43–3.22)	< 0.001

	Female	2.99 (2.65–3.37)	< 0.001	2.56 (2.22–2.94)	< 0.001

Presence of DM	Male	3.64 (3.38–3.92)	< 0.001	2.72 (2.50–2.96)	< 0.001

	Female	3.02 (2.81–3.24)	< 0.001	2.49 (2.29–2.69)	< 0.001

≥ 90 yr

Absence of DM	Male	4.12 (2.75–6.20)	< 0.001	3.06 (1.94–4.82)	< 0.001

	Female	3.02 (2.00–4.55)	< 0.001	3.03 (1.94–4.72)	< 0.001

Presence of DM	Male	3.57 (2.73–4.67)	< 0.001	2.43 (1.85–3.20)	< 0.001

	Female	2.61 (2.00–3.42)	< 0.001	2.41 (1.76–3.31)	< 0.001

CVC, central venous catheter; DM, diabetes mellitus; AVF, arteriovenous fistula; AVG, arteriovenous graft; aHR, adjusted hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval.

REFERENCES

1. United States Renal Data System. USRDS 2024 annual data report [Internet] Bethesda (MD): United States Renal Data System, c2024. [cited 2025 May 19]. Available from: https://usrds-adr.niddk.nih.gov/2024 .

2. Drouven JW, de Bruin C, van Roon AM, Bokkers RPH, El Moumni M, Zeebregts CJ. Vascular access creation in octogenarians: the effect of age on outcomes. J Vasc Surg 2020;72:171–179.

3. Ravani P, Quinn R, Fiocco M, et al. Association of age with risk of kidney failure in adults with stage IV chronic kidney disease in Canada. JAMA Netw Open 2020;3:e2017150.

4. KORDS Committee, The Korean Society of Nephrology. Trends in epidemiologic characteristics of end-stage kidney disease from 2023 KORDS (Korean Renal Data System) [Internet] Seoul: KORDS Committee, The Korean Society of Nephrology, c2024. [cited 2025 May 19]. Available from: https://ksn.or.kr/bbs/skin/publication/download.php?code=report_eng&number=2190 .

5. Lok CE, Huber TS, Lee T, et al. KDOQI clinical practice guideline for vascular access: 2019 update. Am J Kidney Dis 2020;75:S1–S164.

6. Hod T, Desilva RN, Patibandla BK, Vin Y, Brown RS, Goldfarb-Rumyantzev AS. Factors predicting failure of AV “fistula first” policy in the elderly. Hemodial Int 2014;18:507–515.

7. Moist LM, Lok CE, Vachharajani TJ, et al. Optimal hemodialysis vascular access in the elderly patient. Semin Dial 2012;25:640–648.

8. Watorek E, Golebiowski T, Kusztal M, et al. Creation of arteriovenous fistulae for hemodialysis in octogenarians. Hemodial Int 2014;18:113–117.

9. Farrington C, Lee TC. The New Age of Vascular access: choosing the right access for the right reason in older hemodialysis patients. Am J Kidney Dis 2020;76:457–459.

10. Hall RK, Myers ER, Rosas SE, O’Hare AM, Colón-Emeric CS. Choice of hemodialysis access in older adults: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2017;12:947–954.

11. Hiremath S, Knoll G, Weinstein MC. Should the arteriovenous fistula be created before starting dialysis?: a decision analytic approach. PLoS One 2011;6:e28453.

12. Solid CA, Carlin C. Timing of arteriovenous fistula placement and Medicare costs during dialysis initiation. Am J Nephrol 2012;35:498–508.

13. Canaud B, Leray-Moragues H, Garrigues V, Mion C. Permanent twin catheter: a vascular access option of choice for haemodialysis in elderly patients. Nephrol Dial Transplant 1998;13:Suppl 7. 82–88.

14. Quarello F, Forneris G, Borca M, Pozzato M. Do central venous catheters have advantages over arteriovenous fistulas or grafts? J Nephrol 2006;19:265–279.

15. Dhingra RK, Young EW, Hulbert-Shearon TE, Leavey SF, Port FK. Type of vascular access and mortality in U.S. hemodialysis patients. Kidney Int 2001;60:1443–1451.

16. Xue JL, Dahl D, Ebben JP, Collins AJ. The association of initial hemodialysis access type with mortality outcomes in elderly medicare ESRD patients. Am J Kidney Dis 2003;42:1013–1019.

17. Pisoni RL, Arrington CJ, Albert JM, et al. Facility hemodialysis vascular access use and mortality in countries participating in DOPPS: an instrumental variable analysis. Am J Kidney Dis 2009;53:475–491.

18. Malas MB, Canner JK, Hicks CW, et al. Trends in incident hemodialysis access and mortality. JAMA Surg 2015;150:441–448.

19. Cheol Seong S, Kim YY, Khang YH, et al. Data resource profile: the National Health Information Database of the National Health Insurance Service in South Korea. Int J Epidemiol 2017;46:799–800.

20. Brown RS, Patibandla BK, Goldfarb-Rumyantzev AS. The survival benefit of “Fistula First, Catheter Last” in hemodialysis is primarily due to patient factors. J Am Soc Nephrol 2017;28:645–652.

21. DeSilva RN, Patibandla BK, Vin Y, et al. Fistula first is not always the best strategy for the elderly. J Am Soc Nephrol 2013;24:1297–1304.

22. Kaplan EL, Meier P. Nonparametric Estimation from Incomplete Observations. J Am Stat Assoc 1958;53:457–481.

23. Cox DR. Regression models and life-tables. J R Stat Soc Ser B Methodol 1972;34:187–220.

24. Vascular Access 2006 Work Group. Clinical practice guidelines for vascular access. Am J Kidney Dis 2006;48:Suppl 1. S176–S247.

25. Ekbal NJ, Swift PA, Chalisey A, Steele M, Makanjuola D, Chemla E. Hemodialysis access-related survival and morbidity in an elderly population in South West Thames, UK. Hemodial Int 2008;12:Suppl 2. S15–S19.

26. DeSilva RN, Sandhu GS, Garg J, Goldfarb-Rumyantzev AS. Association between initial type of hemodialysis access used in the elderly and mortality. Hemodial Int 2012;16:233–241.

27. Astor BC, Eustace JA, Powe NR, Klag MJ, Fink NE, Coresh J. Type of vascular access and survival among incident hemodialysis patients: the choices for healthy outcomes in caring for ESRD (CHOICE) study. J Am Soc Nephrol 2005;16:1449–1455.

28. Allon M, Daugirdas J, Depner TA, Greene T, Ornt D, Schwab SJ. Effect of change in vascular access on patient mortality in hemodialysis patients. Am J Kidney Dis 2006;47:469–477.

29. Yeh LM, Chiu SY, Lai PC. The Impact of vascular access types on hemodialysis patient long-term survival. Sci Rep 2019;9:10708.

30. Venegas-Ramírez J, Hernández-Fuentes GA, Palomares CS, et al. Vascular access type and survival outcomes in hemodialysis patients: a seven-year cohort study. Medicina (Kaunas) 2025;61:584.

31. Arhuidese IJ, Cooper MA, Rizwan M, Nejim B, Malas MB. Vascular access for hemodialysis in the elderly. J Vasc Surg 2019;69:517–525e1.

32. Bradbury BD, Fissell RB, Albert JM, et al. Predictors of early mortality among incident US hemodialysis patients in the dialysis outcomes and practice patterns study (DOPPS). Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2007;2:89–99.

33. Kurella M, Covinsky KE, Collins AJ, Chertow GM. Octogenarians and nonagenarians starting dialysis in the United States. Ann Intern Med 2007;146:177–183.

34. Ma L, Zhao S. Risk factors for mortality in patients undergoing hemodialysis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Cardiol 2017;238:151–158.

35. Goodkin DA, Bragg-Gresham JL, Koenig KG, et al. Association of comorbid conditions and mortality in hemodialysis patients in Europe, Japan, and the United States: the dialysis outcomes and practice patterns study (DOPPS). J Am Soc Nephrol 2003;14:3270–3277.

36. Kalantar-Zadeh K, Kilpatrick RD, McAllister CJ, Greenland S, Kopple JD. Reverse epidemiology of hypertension and cardiovascular death in the hemodialysis population: the 58th annual fall conference and scientific sessions. Hypertension 2005;45:811–817.

37. Taylor GD, McKenzie M, Buchanan-Chell M, Caballo L, Chui L, Kowalewska-Grochowska K. Central venous catheters as a source of hemodialysis-related bacteremia. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1998;19:643–646.

38. Jaar BG, Hermann JA, Furth SL, Briggs W, Powe NR. Septicemia in diabetic hemodialysis patients: comparison of incidence, risk factors, and mortality with nondiabetic hemodialysis patients. Am J Kidney Dis 2000;35:282–292.

39. Saleh T, Sumida K, Molnar MZ, et al. Effect of age on the association of vascular access type with mortality in a cohort of incident end-stage renal disease patients. Nephron 2017;137:57–63.

40. Allon M. Dialysis catheter-related bacteremia: treatment and prophylaxis. Am J Kidney Dis 2004;44:779–791.

41. Fan PY, Schwab SJ. Vascular access: concepts for the 1990s. J Am Soc Nephrol 1992;3:1–11.

42. Twardowski ZJ. Percutaneous blood access for hemodialysis. Semin Dial 1995;8:175–186.

43. Lacson E Jr, Lazarus JM, Himmelfarb J, Ikizler TA, Hakim RM. Balancing fistula first with catheters last. Am J Kidney Dis 2007;50:379–395.

44. Almenara-Tejederas M, Rodríguez-Pérez MA, Moyano-Franco MJ, de Cueto-López M, Rodríguez-Baño J, Salgueira-Lazo M. Tunneled catheter-related bacteremia in hemodialysis patients: incidence, risk factors and outcomes. A 14-year observational study. J Nephrol 2023;36:203–212.

45. Lee T, Thamer M, Zhang Q, Zhang Y, Allon M. Vascular access type and clinical outcomes among elderly patients on hemodialysis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2017;12:1823–1830.

46. Quinn RR, Oliver MJ, Devoe D, et al. The effect of predialysis fistula attempt on risk of all-cause and access-related death. J Am Soc Nephrol 2017;28:613–620.

47. Bradbury BD, Chen F, Furniss A, et al. Conversion of vascular access type among incident hemodialysis patients: description and association with mortality. Am J Kidney Dis 2009;53:804–814.

48. Allon M, Young CJ, Lee T. Optimizing dialysis vascular access: moving beyond fistula first. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2025;21:506–514.

49. Murea M, Gardezi AI, Goldman MP, et al. Study protocol of a randomized controlled trial of fistula vs. graft arteriovenous vascular access in older adults with end-stage kidney disease on hemodialysis: the AV access trial. BMC Nephrol 2023;24:43.