Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Early Access
    • Current Issue
    • Kidney360 Podcasts
    • Subject Collections
    • Archives
    • ASN Meeting Abstracts
  • Clinical Images
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Resources
  • Editorial Team
  • More
    • About Kidney360
    • Advertising
    • Disqus Commenting
    • Reprint Information
    • Feedback
    • Email Alerts
  • ASN Kidney News
  • Other
    • JASN
    • CJASN
    • Kidney News Online
    • American Society of Nephrology

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
American Society of Nephrology
  • Other
    • JASN
    • CJASN
    • Kidney News Online
    • American Society of Nephrology
Advertisement
American Society of Nephrology

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Early Access
    • Current Issue
    • Kidney360 Podcasts
    • Subject Collections
    • Archives
    • ASN Meeting Abstracts
  • Clinical Images
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Resources
  • Editorial Team
  • More
    • About Kidney360
    • Advertising
    • Disqus Commenting
    • Reprint Information
    • Feedback
    • Email Alerts
  • ASN Kidney News
  • Visit ASN on Facebook
  • Follow Kidney360 on Twitter
  • Community Forum
  • Kidney360 RSS
Debates in Nephrology

Should Buttonhole Cannulation of Arteriovenous Fistulas Be Used? CON

Jennifer M. MacRae
Kidney360 May 2020, 1 (5) 322-325; DOI: https://doi.org/10.34067/KID.0000602019
Jennifer M. MacRae
1Division of Nephrology, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada
2Libin Cardiovascular Institute, Department of Cardiac Sciences, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Jennifer M. MacRae
  • Article
  • Figures & Data Supps
  • Info & Metrics
  • View PDF
Loading
  • Dialysis
  • arteriovenous fistula
  • buttonhole
  • constant site cannulation
  • fistula
  • hemodialysis
  • rope ladder cannulation
  • vascular access

Introduction

Fistulas continue to be promoted as the vascular access of choice due to their lower complication rates as compared with catheters (1,2). However, depending on the fistula cannulation method, the infection risk can compared with that of a catheter. Traditionally, cannulation is an area most physicians tend to ignore; instead, the choice and technique of cannulation is routinely left to nurses. However, given the pain, fear, and anxiety with cannulation that most hemodialysis patients experience (3–⇓5), all health care providers should pay more attention to needling. Furthermore, cannulation and its associated mishaps can lead to fistula complications of infection, and decreased patency.

The most common method of cannulation among maintenance hemodialysis patients is the rope ladder technique, which rotates needling sites along the full length of the fistula. The area wall technique, where favored regions are repeatedly needled, is actively discouraged due to progressive weakness in the vessel wall and subsequent aneurysm formation (6). Buttonhole cannulation is more often used in home hemodialysis and it was first introduced as a measure to cannulate a fistula with a limited area for needling (7). Buttonhole involves a constant site of needling that, over time, leads to an epithelized track into which a blunt needle is inserted. Since its first introduction almost 50 years ago by Dr Twardoski and his head nurse (Sister Kumara), buttonhole has continued to garner widespread enthusiasm. Support for its use has been mostly promoted by observational data and poor-quality methodology studies showing beneficial effects on pain and fewer needling complications. Nephrology societies (8,9) (renal.org/guidelines) still recommend buttonhole use as a means to reduce pain and increase longevity.

In order to promote a novel cannulation technique over the standard of care, there should be evidence of benefit and a lack of demonstrable harm. Buttonhole cannulation lacks evidence to support a consistent benefit and, distressingly, is associated with potential harm, as reviewed in the paragraphs below.

Evidence Does not Support a Reduction in Pain with Buttonhole Cannulation

Supporters of buttonhole refer to multiple studies (6,7) and a meta-analysis of observational studies showing significant reduction in pain (10). The concern with these studies is that they are limited by selection bias and residual confounders. The best-quality evidence regarding buttonhole cannulation comes from five randomized trials (11–⇓⇓⇓15), and when these studies are included in the meta-analysis there is no signal of reduced pain (10). Four of the five randomized trials showed no improvement in pain with buttonhole cannulation. The only randomized trial (14) to report “less pain with needling” did not actually report on the magnitude of effect, nor describe how this outcome was measured, making this result questionable. In both our study (12) and the trail by Vaux et al. (15), there was a trend to worse pain with buttonhole. A larger proportion of patients had a high pain score with buttonhole as compared with rope ladder cannulation (12), and more patients withdrew from buttonhole cannulation (15) due to pain. In summary, the literature does not support the idea of improved pain with buttonhole needling among in-center hemodialysis patients (Table1).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Summary of buttonhole cannulation outcomes

Buttonhole Might Reduce Hematoma and Aneurysm Growth but the Effect on Access Survival Is Unclear

Observational studies report fewer needling complications (17) of infiltration and hematoma (16), improvements in aneurysm size (18), and better time to hemostasis (6,17,18,20). Two randomized trials demonstrate fewer hematomas (12,13): 295 per 1000 dialysis days for buttonhole versus 426 per 1000 dialysis days for rope ladder needling in our trial. A third trial (11) showed an increase in hematomas with buttonhole, whereas the remaining two randomized trials did not report on this, giving an overall unclear effect on hematoma. The shorter time to achieve hemostasis seen with buttonhole in observational studies is not substantiated by randomized data, in which all five studies found no difference in hemostasis after needle removal. The improvement in aneurysm size noted in observational studies was also seen in two of the randomized trials (but not reported in the other three). Struthers et al. (13) noted an increase in the size of fistula diameter of 30% in rope ladder versus only 1% in buttonhole. Vaux et al. (15) also showed less growth of the fistula diameter with buttonhole (23%) as compared to rope ladder (67%).

If, in fact, buttonhole cannulation leads to fewer hematomas and less aneurysmal growth of the fistula, this might translate into fewer access interventions and longer access survival. The need to maintain a well functioning access is paramount for hemodialysis patients. Most patients who have a fistula can expect 2.75 access procedures/year (28). Access procedures are a high burden for patients, which effect their quality of life. Unfortunately, the effect of buttonhole cannulation on access interventions has conflicting results in observational studies (19,20,22). One showed fewer interventions with buttonhole (22) compared with the rope ladder method; however, the control group was from a different hemodialysis unit, making it difficult to draw conclusions. Another observational study showed no improvement in fistula patency and a trend to more interventions with buttonhole cannulation (P=0.07) (19).

The evidence from randomized trials shows conflicting results. Vaux et al. (15) showed a reduced number of interventions in buttonhole (0.4 versus 0.2 interventions/patient per year with buttonhole). However, many of the patients randomized to buttonhole (14 of 58) switched to rope ladder cannulation but were analyzed as buttonhole, which likely affects interpretation. Contrary to their conclusions, we found, in an intention-to-treat analysis (21), an increase in the number of procedures and interventions on buttonhole patients, and no difference in access survival. One main difference between these two studies was the use of a polycarbonate peg to promote buttonhole track formation (Vaux et al. (15)) instead of repeated cannulation at a constant site (15) using a sharp needle (MacRae et al. (21)). Peg creation of buttonhole might lead to fewer false tracks and less mechanical injury to the vessel wall, which might affect the risk of fistula stenosis (29) and lead to more favorable outcomes. Over time, regardless of technique, cannulation leads to intimal hyperplasia and the development of stenosis. Buttonhole cannulation has been shown to have endothelial hyperplasia at the sites of cannulation (30), which may lead to stenosis formation (31). Clearly more study is required to determine if the technique of cannulation is in fact an important determinant of fistula patency and survival.

The Risk of Infection with Buttonhole Is Exceedingly High

Any potential benefit of buttonhole cannulation must be weighed against the most concerning effect: that of increased infection (Figure 1). A recent meta-analysis (10) of observational and randomized trials of buttonhole cannulation showed a very high risk of infection with an odds ratio 3.19 [95% confidence interval (CI), 2.12 to 4.77]. A recent review (27) of bacteremia in 882 hemodialysis patients from a program that had buttonhole cannulation as standard of care showed that the risk of Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia with buttonhole cannulation, hazard ratio (HR) 3.6 (95% CI, 1.4 to 95), approaches that of patients with catheters, HR 5.3 (95% CI, 1.9 to 18.6). These high rates of bacteremia prompted the hemodialysis program to introduce a variety of measures designed to reduce infection rates, such as restricting the number of buttonhole cannulators, introducing an intensive asepsis policy, and avoiding buttonhole use among patients who were nasal carriers of S. aureus. These measures, which were initially successful in reducing infections, were followed by a subsequent relapse. Our own experience with buttonhole is that it is associated with significantly more S. aureus bacteremia than standard cannulation. Similar to Labriola et al. (25), we have also noted that the onset of bacteremia is delayed, with a median time to infection of 11 months. Thus, studies of short duration will underestimate the risk of infection associated with this technique. All of the randomized buttonhole studies, including that by Vaux et al. (15), have shown an increase in the number of localized infections. Whereas we noted significantly more S. aureus bacteremia with buttonhole, Vaux et al. did not see increased bacteremia. There are a couple of differences between these studies that are worth highlighting. The use of polycarbonate pegs to create the track and the use of face masks during buttonhole cannulation may have reduced the risk of infection.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Healthy and infected buttonhole.

Potential Mechanisms of Infection in Buttonhole

S. aureus colonization of the nares with subsequent transmission to the buttonhole scab site may promote the introduction of bacteria into the buttonhole track, which acts as a nidus for infection. Toma et al. (32) obtained sterile culture samples from the buttonhole track in 59 patients, and found S. aureus in 5.1% and Staphylococcus epidermis in 13.6% of the tracks. Another study of prospectively tracked bacterial cultures from the buttonhole scab and insertion sites among 84 patients revealed a 20% culture positive rate (33). Colonization of the buttonhole tracks with S. aureus and S. epidermis was associated with more access-related infections than those with negative cultures or mixed organisms.

Autopsy studies indicate that buttonhole tracks develop granulated tissue in response to repeated contact of the needle along the track (34). Over time, the granulated tissue manifests either as a deformity at the surface of the buttonhole site or as a narrowing within the vessel lumen. The deformity makes it harder to remove fragments of the scab, which promotes bacterial migration from the skin into the track, thus, promoting bacterial colonization (34). False buttonhole tracks, created when multiple cannulators are involved, can also lead to increased risk of infection (35), potentially by the mechanism above. Nurses perceive buttonhole cannulation as harder than routine cannulation (12), and with multiple cannulators there are likely many false tracks. The polycarbonate peg method of buttonhole formation might lead to a lower risk of infection by reducing the number of false tracks. However, polycarbonate pegs, which are potentially useful for track creation, are limited in their widespread use by high cost.

Buttonhole Outcomes Are not Any Better in Home Dialysis Patients

The increased risk of infection associated with buttonhole cannulation for in-center hemodialysis patients is also a concern for those who dialyze at home (23). In an observational cohort of home hemodialysis patients, there was a significant increase in infections with buttonhole cannulation as compared with rope ladder cannulation (0.4/1000 days versus 0.1/1000 fistula days (26)). Despite implementation of preventative measures such as topical mupirocin (23), re-education on asepsis measures and audits of technique, the risk of bacteremia remains high (24,26). Routine audits of technique in home hemodialysis patients (36) show that buttonhole cannulation leads to more errors than either rope ladder cannulation (54% versus 37%, P=0.008) or use of a catheter (P=0.01). Errors with buttonhole cannulation are related to inappropriate scab removal and poor aseptic technique, which, over time, may contribute to the increased bacteremia rates. Health care providers, including nephrologists, need to be aware that pain and fear associated with needling is a major area of concern for patients (3,4). Anxiety and the uncertainty surrounding fistula cannulation are highlighted in qualitative studies (5). Clearly, cannulation techniques, and their risks and benefits, should be part of vascular access education for patients and health care providers. Physicians need to be more engaged in the cannulation process, and need to be aware of the benefits and risks in order to promote shared decision making with patients. The current evidence supports fewer hematomas, unclear impact on fistula survival, similar reports of pain, and very high infection rates with buttonhole cannulation. Concerningly, the infection risk with buttonhole persists even with the use of prophylactic strategies such as topical mupirocin and frequent review of technique. Infection with S. aureus, as a consequence of buttonhole cannulation, has high septic complication (22.6%) and mortality (9.7% at 30 days) rates (27).

Due to the high risk of infection associated with buttonhole, this method of cannulation should not be promoted, and yet health care providers continue to do so. If we are to apply the principles of evidence-based medicine, then the judicial use of the current best evidence suggests that rope ladder cannulation is the cannulation of choice hemodialysis patients.

Disclosures

J. MacRae has nothing to disclose.

Funding

None.

Author Contributions

J MacRae conceptualized the study, wrote the original draft, and was responsible for reviewing and editing the manuscript.

Footnotes

  • See related debate, “Should Buttonhole Cannulation of Arteriovenous Fistulas be Used? PRO” and commentary, “Should Buttonhole Cannulation of Arteriovenous Fistulas Be Used? Moderator Commentary” on pages 318–321 and 326–329, respectively.

  • Copyright © 2020 by the American Society of Nephrology

References

  1. ↵
    1. Astor BC,
    2. Eustace JA,
    3. Powe NR,
    4. Klag MJ,
    5. Fink NE,
    6. Coresh J
    ; CHOICE Study: 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 16: 1449–1455, 2005
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Pastan S,
    2. Soucie JM,
    3. McClellan WM
    : Vascular access and increased risk of death among hemodialysis patients. Kidney Int 62: 620–626, 2002
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Kosa SD,
    2. Bhola C,
    3. Lok CE
    : Measuring patient satisfaction with vascular access: Vascular access questionnaire development and reliability testing. J Vasc Access 16: 200–205, 2015
    OpenUrl
  4. ↵
    1. Kosa SD,
    2. Bhola C,
    3. Lok CE
    : Hemodialysis patients’ satisfaction and perspectives on complications associated with vascular access related interventions: Are we listening? J Vasc Access 17: 313–319, 2016
    OpenUrlPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Romyn A,
    2. Rush KL,
    3. Hole R
    : Vascular access transition: Experiences of patients on hemodialysis. Nephrol Nurs J 42: 445–453; quiz 454, 2015
    OpenUrl
  6. ↵
    1. Verhallen AM,
    2. Kooistra MP,
    3. van Jaarsveld BC
    : Cannulating in haemodialysis: Rope-ladder or buttonhole technique? Nephrol Dial Transplant 22: 2601–2604, 2007
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Twardowski Z,
    2. Lebek R,
    3. Kubara H
    : [6-year experience with the creation and use of internal arteriovenous fistulae in patients treated with repeated hemodialysis]. Pol Arch Med Wewn 57: 205–214, 1977
    OpenUrlPubMed
  8. ↵
    Vascular Access Work Group: Clinical practice guidelines for vascular access. Am J Kidney Dis 48[Suppl 1]: S248–S273, 2006
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Ibeas J,
    2. Roca-Tey R,
    3. Vallespín J,
    4. Moreno T,
    5. Moñux G,
    6. Martí-Monrós A,
    7. Del Pozo JL,
    8. Gruss E,
    9. Ramírez de Arellano M,
    10. Fontseré N,
    11. Arenas MD,
    12. Merino JL,
    13. García-Revillo J,
    14. Caro P,
    15. López-Espada C,
    16. Giménez-Gaibar A,
    17. Fernández-Lucas M,
    18. Valdés P,
    19. Fernández-Quesada F,
    20. de la Fuente N,
    21. Hernán D,
    22. Arribas P,
    23. Sánchez de la Nieta MD,
    24. Martínez MT,
    25. Barba Á
    ; por el Grupo Español Multidisciplinar del Acceso Vascular (GEMAV): Spanish clinical guidelines on vascular access for haemodialysis. Nefrologia 37[Suppl 1]: 1–191, 2017
    OpenUrlPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Wong B,
    2. Muneer M,
    3. Wiebe N,
    4. Storie D,
    5. Shurraw S,
    6. Pannu N,
    7. Klarenbach S,
    8. Grudzinski A,
    9. Nesrallah G,
    10. Pauly RP
    : Buttonhole versus rope-ladder cannulation of arteriovenous fistulas for hemodialysis: A systematic review. Am J Kidney Dis 64: 918–936, 2014
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Chow J,
    2. Rayment G,
    3. San Miguel S,
    4. Gilbert M
    : A randomised controlled trial of buttonhole cannulation for the prevention of fistula access complications. J Ren Care 37: 85–93, 2011
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. MacRae JM,
    2. Ahmed SB,
    3. Atkar R,
    4. Hemmelgarn BR
    : A randomized trial comparing buttonhole with rope ladder needling in conventional hemodialysis patients. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 7: 1632–1638, 2012
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. ↵
    1. Struthers J,
    2. Allan A,
    3. Peel RK,
    4. Lambie SH
    : Buttonhole needling of ateriovenous fistulae: A randomized controlled trial. ASAIO J 56: 319–322, 2010
    OpenUrlPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Toma S,
    2. Shinzato T,
    3. Fukui H,
    4. Nakai S,
    5. Miwa M,
    6. Takai I,
    7. Maeda K
    : A timesaving method to create a fixed puncture route for the buttonhole technique. Nephrol Dial Transplant 18: 2118–2121, 2003
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Vaux E,
    2. King J,
    3. Lloyd S,
    4. Moore J,
    5. Bailey L,
    6. Reading I,
    7. Naik R
    : Effect of buttonhole cannulation with a polycarbonate PEG on in-center hemodialysis fistula outcomes: A randomized controlled trial. Am J Kidney Dis 62: 81–88, 2013
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Pergolotti A,
    2. Rich E,
    3. Lock K
    : The effect of the buttonhole method vs. the traditional method of AV fistula cannulation on hemostasis, needle stick pain, pre-needle stick anxiety, and presence of aneurysms in ambulatory patients on hemodialysis. Nephrol Nurs J 38: 333–336, 2011
    OpenUrlPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Kim MK,
    2. Kim HS
    : Clinical effects of buttonhole cannulation method on hemodialysis patients. Hemodial Int 17: 294–299, 2013
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Marticorena RM,
    2. Hunter J,
    3. Macleod S,
    4. Petershofer E,
    5. Dacouris N,
    6. Donnelly S,
    7. Goldstein MB
    : The salvage of aneurysmal fistulae utilizing a modified buttonhole cannulation technique and multiple cannulators. Hemodial Int 10: 193–200, 2006
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Chan MR,
    2. Shobande O,
    3. Vats H,
    4. Wakeen M,
    5. Meyer X,
    6. Bellingham J,
    7. Astor BC,
    8. Yevzlin AS
    : The effect of buttonhole cannulation vs. rope-ladder technique on hemodialysis access patency. Semin Dial 27: 210–216, 2014
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Ludlow V
    : Buttonhole cannulation in hemodialysis: Improved outcomes and increased expense--is it worth it? CANNT J 20: 29–37, 2010
    OpenUrlPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Macrae JM,
    2. Ahmed SB,
    3. Hemmelgarn BR
    ; Alberta Kidney Disease Network: Arteriovenous fistula survival and needling technique: Long-term results from a randomized buttonhole trial. Am J Kidney Dis 63: 636–642, 2014
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. van Loon MM,
    2. Goovaerts T,
    3. Kessels AG,
    4. van der Sande FM,
    5. Tordoir JH
    : Buttonhole needling of haemodialysis arteriovenous fistulae results in less complications and interventions compared to the rope-ladder technique. Nephrol Dial Transplant 25: 225–230, 2010
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Nesrallah GE,
    2. Cuerden M,
    3. Wong JH,
    4. Pierratos A
    : Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia and buttonhole cannulation: Long-term safety and efficacy of mupirocin prophylaxis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 5: 1047–1053, 2010
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. ↵
    1. Van Eps CL,
    2. Jones M,
    3. Ng T,
    4. Johnson DW,
    5. Campbell SB,
    6. Isbel NM,
    7. Mudge DW,
    8. Beller E,
    9. Hawley CM
    : The impact of extended-hours home hemodialysis and buttonhole cannulation technique on hospitalization rates for septic events related to dialysis access. Hemodial Int 14: 451–463, 2010
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Labriola L,
    2. Crott R,
    3. Desmet C,
    4. André G,
    5. Jadoul M
    : Infectious complications following conversion to buttonhole cannulation of native arteriovenous fistulas: A quality improvement report. Am J Kidney Dis 57: 442–448, 2011
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Muir CA,
    2. Kotwal SS,
    3. Hawley CM,
    4. Polkinghorne K,
    5. Gallagher MP,
    6. Snelling P,
    7. Jardine MJ
    : Buttonhole cannulation and clinical outcomes in a home hemodialysis cohort and systematic review. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 9: 110–119, 2014
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. ↵
    1. Collier S,
    2. Kandil H,
    3. Yewnetu E,
    4. Cross J,
    5. Caplin B,
    6. Davenport A
    : Infection rates following buttonhole cannulation in hemodialysis patients. Ther Apher Dial 20: 476–482, 2016
    OpenUrl
  28. ↵
    1. Kamar F,
    2. Quinn RR,
    3. Oliver MJ,
    4. Viecelli AK,
    5. Hiremath S,
    6. MacRae J,
    7. Miller L,
    8. Blake P,
    9. Moist L,
    10. Garg AX,
    11. Lam NN,
    12. Kabani R,
    13. Clarke A,
    14. Liu P,
    15. Gillespie B,
    16. Ravani P
    : Outcomes of the first and second hemodialysis fistula: A cohort study. Am J Kidney Dis 73: 62–71, 2019
    OpenUrl
  29. ↵
    1. Di Nicolò P,
    2. Cornacchiari M,
    3. Mereghetti M,
    4. Mudoni A
    : Buttonhole cannulation of the AV fistula: A critical analysis of the technique. Semin Dial 30: 32–38, 2017
    OpenUrl
  30. ↵
    1. Hsiao JF,
    2. Chou HH,
    3. Hsu LA,
    4. Wu LS,
    5. Yang CW,
    6. Hsu TS,
    7. Chang CJ
    : Vascular changes at the puncture segments of arteriovenous fistula for hemodialysis access. J Vasc Surg 52: 669–673, 2010
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. ↵
    1. Moreira CL,
    2. Castro A,
    3. Silva F,
    4. Almeida P,
    5. de Matos AN,
    6. Sousa CN,
    7. Almeida R,
    8. Cabrita A,
    9. Queirós JA
    : Stenosis and thrombosis-unveiled complications of buttonhole cannulation. Hemodial Int 23: E90–E92, 2019
    OpenUrl
  32. ↵
    1. Toma S,
    2. Shinzato T,
    3. Hayakawa K
    : Access-related infections involving the buttonhole technique. Blood Purif 41: 306–312, 2016
    OpenUrl
  33. ↵
    1. Christensen LD,
    2. Skadborg MB,
    3. Mortensen AH,
    4. Mortensen C,
    5. Møller JK,
    6. Lemming L,
    7. Høgsberg I,
    8. Petersen SE,
    9. Buus NH
    : Bacteriology of the buttonhole cannulation tract in hemodialysis patients: A prospective cohort study. Am J Kidney Dis 72: 234–242, 2018
    OpenUrl
  34. ↵
    1. Sato S,
    2. Shinzato T,
    3. Sakai N,
    4. Ohkuri K,
    5. Sasaki M,
    6. Nakai S,
    7. Toma S
    : Deformity of buttonhole entry site causes higher frequency of vascular access-related infection. Contrib Nephrol 186: 48–56, 2015
    OpenUrlPubMed
  35. ↵
    1. Ball LK
    : The buttonhole technique: Strategies to reduce infections. Nephrol Nurs J 37: 473–477; quiz 478, 2010
    OpenUrlPubMed
  36. ↵
    1. Dhruve M,
    2. Faratro R,
    3. D’Gama C,
    4. Fung S,
    5. Arustei D,
    6. Wong E,
    7. Chan CT
    : The use of nurse-administered vascular access audit in home hemodialysis patients: A quality initiative. Hemodial Int 23: 133–138, 2019
    OpenUrl
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Kidney360: 1 (5)
Kidney360
Vol. 1, Issue 5
28 May 2020
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Cover (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
View Selected Citations (0)
Print
Download PDF
Sign up for Alerts
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Society of Nephrology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Should Buttonhole Cannulation of Arteriovenous Fistulas Be Used? CON
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Society of Nephrology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Society of Nephrology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Should Buttonhole Cannulation of Arteriovenous Fistulas Be Used? CON
Jennifer M. MacRae
Kidney360 May 2020, 1 (5) 322-325; DOI: 10.34067/KID.0000602019

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Should Buttonhole Cannulation of Arteriovenous Fistulas Be Used? CON
Jennifer M. MacRae
Kidney360 May 2020, 1 (5) 322-325; DOI: 10.34067/KID.0000602019
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Introduction
    • Buttonhole Might Reduce Hematoma and Aneurysm Growth but the Effect on Access Survival Is Unclear
    • The Risk of Infection with Buttonhole Is Exceedingly High
    • Potential Mechanisms of Infection in Buttonhole
    • Buttonhole Outcomes Are not Any Better in Home Dialysis Patients
    • Disclosures
    • Funding
    • Author Contributions
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data Supps
  • Info & Metrics
  • View PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • Corticosteroids are effective in IgA Nephropathy
  • Corticosteroids in IgAN
  • Group II GBCM Can Be Used Safely for Imaging in Stage 4/5 CKD Patients: CON
Show more Debates in Nephrology

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Similar Articles

Related Articles

  • Should Buttonhole Cannulation of Arteriovenous Fistulas Be Used? Moderator Commentary
  • Should Buttonhole Cannulation of Arteriovenous Fistulas be Used? PRO
  • Google Scholar

Keywords

  • dialysis
  • arteriovenous fistula
  • Buttonhole
  • constant site cannulation
  • fistula
  • hemodialysis
  • rope ladder cannulation
  • vascular access

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Early Access
  • Subject Collections
  • Article Archive
  • ASN Meeting Abstracts

Information for Authors

  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Author Resources
  • ASN Journal Policies
  • Reuse/Reprint Policy

About

  • Kidney360
  • ASN
  • ASN Journals
  • ASN Kidney News

Journal Information

  • About Kidney360
  • Kidney360 Email Alerts
  • Kidney360 Podcasts
  • Kidney360 RSS Feeds
  • Editorial Board

More Information

  • Advertise
  • ASN Podcasts
  • ASN Publications
  • Become an ASN Member
  • Disqus Code of Conduct
  • Disqus Information
  • Feedback
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Subscribe to JASN and CJASN

© 2021 American Society of Nephrology

Online ISSN - 2641-7650

Powered by HighWire