Adv. Respir. Med. 2026, 94(4), 46; https://doi.org/10.3390/arm94040046 - 6 Jul 2026
Abstract
Background/Objectives: Pulmonary hypertension (PH) is an increasingly recognized complication in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) undergoing hemodialysis, particularly those utilizing arteriovenous fistulas (AVF) or grafts (AVG) for vascular access. The prevalence and clinical impact of PH in this population remain unclear due
[...] Read more.
Background/Objectives: Pulmonary hypertension (PH) is an increasingly recognized complication in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) undergoing hemodialysis, particularly those utilizing arteriovenous fistulas (AVF) or grafts (AVG) for vascular access. The prevalence and clinical impact of PH in this population remain unclear due to methodological heterogeneity and variable diagnostic criteria. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to quantify the association between AVF/AVG use and PH prevalence in ESRD patients and to explore sources of heterogeneity. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted for studies published through 31 December 2024, without language or date restrictions. Eligible studies included adults (≥18 years) with ESRD on dialysis, comparing those with AVF/AVG access to non-AVF/AVG controls (e.g., tunneled dialysis catheters or peritoneal dialysis), and reporting PH prevalence or mean pulmonary artery pressures. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale, and risk of bias was evaluated. A random-effects meta-analysis calculated pooled odds ratios (OR) for PH prevalence, with heterogeneity assessed by I2 and Cochran’s Q. Sensitivity analyses and tests for publication bias (Egger’s and Begg’s) were performed. Secondary analysis compared pooled mean pulmonary artery pressures between groups. Results: Eleven observational studies (1299 dialysis patients) met the inclusion criteria; ten studies (1224 patients) contributed to the quantitative meta-analysis after exclusion of one study with a zero-event control arm. Most studies were small, predominantly cross-sectional, and of moderate methodological quality. The pooled analysis showed a statistically significant association between AVF/AVG use and PH (OR 2.06, 95% CI: 1.69–2.52), with low statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 0%). This estimate was sensitive to individual studies: in leave-one-out analysis the association lost statistical significance when the single most influential study was removed indicating that the pooled result is driven in part by a small number of studies rather than being uniformly robust. No statistical evidence of publication bias was detected. Five studies reported continuous pulmonary artery pressures, which were directionally higher in AVF/AVG patients but were not pooled because of extreme heterogeneity (I2 = 99.4%). Conclusions: In this synthesis of observational data, AVF/AVG use was associated with higher odds of pulmonary hypertension than non-AVF/AVG access. Because all included studies were observational and the pooled estimate is sensitive to individual influential studies, these findings indicate a possible association rather than a causal effect and should be interpreted with caution. They support the rationale for prospective hemodynamic studies and for evaluating—rather than presuming the benefit of—PH monitoring and individualized access strategies in higher-risk dialysis patients.
Full article
