Home About us Current issue Back issues Submission Instructions Advertise Contact Login   

Search Article 
  
Advanced search 
 
Saudi Journal of Kidney Diseases and Transplantation
Users online: 2257 Home Bookmark this page Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font size Increase font size 
 


 
Table of Contents   
RENAL DATA FROM THE ARAB WORLD  
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 30  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 166-174
Vascular access types in hemodialysis patients in palestine and factors affecting their distribution: A cross-sectional study


1 Department of Nephrology, An-Najah National University Hospital, An-Najah National University, Nablus, Palestine
2 Department of Internal Medicine, Nablus Specialty Hospital, Nablus, Palestine
3 Department of Internal Medicine, An-Najah National University Hospital, An-Najah National University, Nablus, Palestine
4 Department of Public Health, College of Health Sciences, Doha, Qatar
5 Department of Internal Medicine, Kent Hospital, Brown University, Rhode Island, USA

Click here for correspondence address and email

Date of Submission10-May-2018
Date of Acceptance08-Jul-2018
Date of Web Publication26-Feb-2019
 

   Abstract 


The incidence of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients is increasing considerably worldwide, and most of the patients start their therapy by hemodialysis (HD). Arteriovenous fistula (AVF) is the best type of vascular access due to its decreased rate of complications followed by arteriovenous graft (AVG) and finally, central venous catheters which are associated with increased mortality and morbidity. In this study, we aim to find out the proportion of each vascular access type used in HD patients and to evaluate the epidemiology of HD access in Palestine. Six hundred and fifty-eight patients were enrolled in this study from 10 dialysis units distributed in Palestine. The patients were divided into incident patients or prevalent patients. Data were collected by the researchers by regular visits to the units. AVFs were the most common access type (69.3%), catheters came second (27.8%) finally, AVGs (2.9%). Temporary catheters composed 59% of all catheters, followed by the permanent catheters. The subclavian vein was the most common insertion site (68.3%), internal jugular vein (26.8%), and femoral vein (4.9%). Temporary catheters were most commonly used among incident patients (41.5%) and AVFs were the most common in the prevalent patients (75%). There was no statistically significant association between the type of dialysis access use with gender, body mass index, or diabetic status. We recommend close follow-up and early AVF creation when the patients are expected to need HD. We also highly recommend decreasing the duration of temporary catheters. Finally, further prospective studies to follow-up and evaluate the progression in the vascular access status in Palestine are needed.

How to cite this article:
Hamdan Z, As'ad N, Sawalmeh O, Shraim M, Kukhon F. Vascular access types in hemodialysis patients in palestine and factors affecting their distribution: A cross-sectional study. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl 2019;30:166-74

How to cite this URL:
Hamdan Z, As'ad N, Sawalmeh O, Shraim M, Kukhon F. Vascular access types in hemodialysis patients in palestine and factors affecting their distribution: A cross-sectional study. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl [serial online] 2019 [cited 2019 Mar 25];30:166-74. Available from: http://www.sjkdt.org/text.asp?2019/30/1/166/252907



   Introduction Top


The incidence of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) is increasing considerably in the past few years, the incidence in 2008 in the US was 112,476 compared to 120,435 in 2014. However, more than 87% of the incident patients start their therapy with hemodialysis (HD).[1],[2] Vascular access type is one of the most important factors that affect health outcomes of HD patients. Central venous catheters (CVC), arteriovenous fistulas (AVF), and arteriovenous grafts (AVG) are different types of accesses that can be used for HD. However, many factors will influence the location and the type of access that will be used, for example, patient's arterial, venous and cardiorespiratory systems, other clinical and socioeconomic factors and duration on HD.[3],[4] Among the different types of vascular access AVFs are considered to be the best in terms of less infection, and less thrombotic events and hospitalization episodes. In addition, AVFs are associated with increased patient survival.[3],[5],[6],[7],[8] AVGs are considered the second best choice as HD access.[9] They are made of prosthetic material that connects two vessels that are far away to be linked through fistula.[10] The use of central venous catheter as dialysis access has been associated with worse mortality, morbidity, and economic burden.[3] Vascular access complications such as infection, thrombosis, and narrowing of central veins are major causes of morbidity and mortality in HD patients.[11],[12],[13]

In the literature, there is a wide variation among worldwide countries regarding the types of accesses being used for ESRD patients on HD. In Europe, 66% of new patients start their HD through AVF compared to 15% in the US, whereas catheters are more widely used in the US among newly diagnosed ESRD patients with a percentage of 60% versus 31% in Europe.[14] Moreover, there is a considerable variation among patients' preferences regarding the use of catheters as dialysis access.[15] Unfortunately, up to authors' knowledge, no one study has been performed to describe such data among HD patients in West Bank, Palestine.

In this study, we aim to find out the proportion of each access type used in HD patients and to evaluate the epidemiology of HD access in the West Bank, Palestine. We also aim to find possible factors associated with the distribution of vascular access. Finally, we aspire that this study will become a baseline for further studies that are required to follow-up and evaluate the progression in the vascular access status in West Bank.


   Methods Top


Study design, population, and setting

The study is a cross-sectional one, conducted in 10 HD centers distributed within the West Bank, Palestine in the period between July 2013 and June 2014. The Institutional Review Board of College of Medicine and Health Sciences at An-Najah National University granted ethical approval for this study. All patients signed informed consent for partici-pation in the study. Patients had to meet the following eligibility criteria for inclusion in the study: patient known to have ESRD on regular HD in any of the included centers, age ≥18 years old. Patients who did not meet the inclusion criteria or those who refused to participate were excluded from the study. All patients were on regular HD, twice or thrice weekly.

Treatment groups

Incident patients were defined as patients who started HD <150 days (5 months) before 1/10/2013, whereas prevalent patients were defined as patients who started HD 150 days (5 months) or more before 1/10/2013. Given that the average time for maturation of AV fistula is about 6–8 weeks, 150 days was chosen as the time to establish permanent access for HD. This period was used to allow logistic time for the surgical procedures and for possible interventions.

Data collection

The type of vascular access was recorded as AVF, AVG, temporary CVC, tunneled cuffed CVC, and CVC with maturing AVF or AVG. Each patient was interviewed to obtain the relevant data and patient's medical records were reviewed. Vascular access type data were collected with specific data relating to the anatomical location of vascular access, and duration of access use. Other data such as gender, body mass index (BMI), diabetes types (I or II), and location of dialysis units were collected. To avoid the possibility of confusing dialysis access types, physical examination of each patient was done to assure the proper vascular access was recorded. The investigating team collected all data. BMI was calculated after measuring the height and weight of each patient. The dry weight was used in the calculation of the BMI. Obesity was defined as BMI >30, overweight as BMI between 25 and 29, normal weight as BMI between 18 and 24 and BMI <18 as under-weight.[16]


   Statistical Analysis Top


Variables and data were collected manually from patients in each dialysis unit using paper master sheets and then were computerized and encoded. Analytical cross-tabulations were used to present the relationship between each independent variable (gender, age, vascular access timing, diabetic status, BMI, duration on dialysis, and dialysis unit) and the dependent variable (vascular access type). Chi-square test was used to assess these relations as appropriate. All statistical analyses were conducted using the Social Package of Statistical Sciences (SPSS) software version 17.0 (IBM Corp. Armonk, NY, USA).


   Results Top


Baseline characteristics of patients

Six hundred and fifty-eight patients were enrolled in the study. Most of the participants were male (59.3%), and the mean age of the patients was 52.9 ± 15.69 years. The participants were distributed in 10 dialysis centers of the West Bank with the highest number of participants were in the northern district of the West Bank of Palestine. Regarding diabetic status and BMI, the highest proportion of the patients were nondiabetic (58.7%) and with normal BMI (44.7%). The baseline demographic and other characteristics of patients are presented in [Table 1].
Table 1: Patient characteristics.

Click here to view


Vascular access characteristics

Most of the enrolled patients were prevalent ones, 576 patients, accounting for 87.5% of all patients, whereas 82 patients were incidents and accounting 12.5%. AVF was the most common access type (69.3%) among all patients followed by temporary dialysis catheters only (16.4%), tunneled cuffed dialysis catheters represented (6.4%), catheters with maturing fistulas were (5%) and the least used access type was AVGs with (2.9%). Vascular access types and their proportions are presented in [Table 2] and [Figure 1].
Table 2: Vascular access types and their distribution.

Click here to view
Figure 1: Vascular access type among all patients.

Click here to view


Catheters were furthermore grouped based on type and site of insertion. There were two types of catheters used as dialysis access; temporary catheters that were the most common type (59% of all catheters), permanent catheters (23% of all catheters) and catheters with immature fistula (18% of all catheters) [Table 3].
Table 3: Catheter types and their distribution.

Click here to view


Dialysis catheter insertion site

Regarding catheter insertion site, the most common site was subclavian vein (68.3%) followed by internal jugular vein (26.2%), femoral vein (4.9%) and transhepatic catheter, respectively. The catheter insertion site is significantly related to the type of catheter (P <0.001). The subclavian vein was the most common site in temporary catheters and catheters with maturing fistula, whereas the internal jugular was the most common site for permanent catheter [Table 4]. The most common site for temporary dialysis catheter insertion was the subclavian vein followed by the femoral vein. The internal jugular vein was not used for as a site of insertion of temporary dialysis catheters.
Table 4: Distribution of catheter insertion types.

Click here to view


Duration of dialysis and access type

When dividing the patients into the incident (<5 months) and prevalent (more or equals 5 months) we found that the type of access varies significantly. For incident patients, the temporary catheters are the most common access type (41.5%), whereas in prevalent patients, the AVF is the most common one (75%) [Table 5].
Table 5: Types of access according to the duration of dialysis.

Click here to view


Factors affecting dialysis access types

There was a significant relationship between dialysis center and access type (P = 0.0002) with variation in access types proportions among the different ten centers as shown in [Table 6]. AVFs are considered as the most common vascular access type being used among all centers with the highest being the northern ones with percentage of about (72.1%). Temporary catheters proportion was significantly low in the northern centers (7.9%). On the other hand, it was relatively higher in the middle centers (29.8%). Permanent catheters proportion was as twice in the northern centers (8.2%) as middle (4.3%) or southern (4.8%) centers. Catheters with immature fistula were significantly higher in the northern centers (7.3%) but significantly low in the middle centers (0.7%). Finally, grafts proportion was significantly higher in the northern centers also (4.5%) [Table 6]. There was no statistically significant association between the type of dialysis access use with gender, BMI, or diabetic status [Table 7].
Table 6: Vascular access according to dialysis center.

Click here to view
Table 7: Distribution of access types according to patient BMI and DM.

Click here to view



   Discussion Top


The aim of this cross-sectional study is to find out the different types of vascular accesses used for HD in ESRD patients being used in our country and the proportion of each and to compare our findings with those of the other parts of the world. We also aim to put a framework for future follow-up studies to be able to track the improvement in this field in the forthcoming years.

As the results of the study showed, the most common vascular access type over all the included 658 patients in this study was the AVF, which was present in 69.3% of the patients. Compared to other studies in other countries, AVF proportion was lower in West Bank than in other countries such as Germany (84%), France (77%), and Italy (90%).[14] AVF proportion in the United Kingdom (67%)[14] and Egypt (67.3%)[17] were close to that in the West Bank.[14] In the USA, the proportion of AVF there among prevalent patients is (63.4%) in 2014 and this is also close to our findings in Palestine, (75% among prevalent patients, [Table 5]).[1],[18] In both Saudi Arabia and north Jordan, proportion of AVF was about 56% for each which is lower than in the West Bank.[19],[20] Our findings, 75% of prevalent patients are using AVF, are close to those of an Australian study which revealed that the AVF accounts for 77% of all prevalent patients.[21]

Catheters represented the second most common access type in the West Bank, 27.8% of the patients. Temporary catheters formed 59% of all catheters and 16.4% of all access types. Proportions of catheters were lower in countries such as France (6%), Germany (4%), Spain (7%),[18] and USA (15%)[22] compared to that proportion in the West Bank (27.8%).

Regarding grafts, they were the least common access type used in the West Bank (2.9% for all and 3.1% for prevalent patients). In the USA, the percentage decreased dramatically between the years 2003–2014 from 40% to 18%.[1] About 5% of patients had fistula creation, but AVF was still immature and hence, they were using catheters temporarily until the fistula are mature.

Compared to developed countries, the West Bank has generally the lower proportion of AVF and a higher proportion of catheters, especially temporary non-tunneled catheters. This means that access type status needs more improvement by increasing the proportion of patients with AVF as it is the best vascular access type,[3],[6],[7],[18] and by decreasing proportion of patients with catheters (mainly temporary catheters) and other venous catheters as they are associated with decreased patients' survival and their association with more frequent access complications[8],[11],[23] and increased risk of hospitalizations if the catheters are used as a baseline dialysis access.[24] Improvement in this field will affect health outcomes of dialysis patients by decreasing mortality and morbidity with better economic outcomes by decreasing costs and expenses on expected complications.[18] In addition to that, early and persistent AVF creation has been associated with a better feeling of improved health and quality of life in dialysis patients.[25] However, compared to the neighboring countries, results in West Bank were close and even sometimes better.[17],[19],[20] This also inspires us to set up future plans for dialysis access in patients expected to start their HD and introduce methods to reduce the complications associated with catheter use mainly temporary ones.[26],[27]

In the present study, we found a significant correlation between the used vascular access type and the duration of dialysis. Prevalent patients used more AVF (75%) and grafts (3.1%) compared to incident patients (29.3% of access types were AVF and 1% were grafts). On the other hand, incident patients had a higher percentage of temporary catheters (41.5%), permanent catheters (8.5%) and catheters with immature fistulas (19.5%) compared to prevalent patients in whom 12.8% of access types were temporary catheters, 6.1% were permanent catheters and only 3% were catheters with immature fistula [Table 5]. When we compare these findings with the US data, we find that the AVFs are used in 16.9% of incident patients compared with 29.3% in West Bank. Catheters, catheters with maturing graft or fistula and AVG were found in 61.6%, 18.7%, and 2.9%, respectively, among incident patients in the US.[1] This wide variation might be explained by noting that AVF prevalence of 60% or more is achieved at about one year on HD in the US.[1]

The high percentage of prevalent patients with temporary catheters (12.8%), is likely due to failure of previous AVF or other reasons such as the delay in referral to the vascular surgery centers. However, this problem seems to be universal as many European and American countries have not achieved a satisfied reduction in the percentage of catheter use.[28]

Regarding catheter insertion sites the vast majority of temporary catheters and catheters with immature fistula (94.4% and 69.7%, respectively) were inserted in the subclavian vein whereas the majority of permanent catheters (92.9%) were inserted in the internal jugular vein, making the subclavian vein the mostly used vein (68.3%) followed by internal jugular vein (26.2%) [Table 4] and [Table 8]. In Europe, 57% of temporary catheters are inserted in the internal jugular vein, but in the US, both subclavian and internal jugular veins are used equally as insertion sites for temporary catheters (46% for each).[14] The aforementioned findings urges us to re-evaluate the distribution of temporary catheter insertion sites away from the subclavian vein due to the high risk of complications that are associated with its use, mainly central venous stenosis.[29],[30] Regarding dialysis center districts, the results showed that it has a significant variation in the distribution of vascular access types. The highest proportion of temporary catheters (29.8%) was in the middle centers, whereas the lowest was in northern centers (7.9%). On the other hand, the highest proportion of AVF was in northern centers (72.1%) and the percentages of the other two centers were in the same range (63.1% and 69%), [Table 6]. After testing the relationship between vascular access type and gender, BMI and diabetes mellitus status, results showed that there was no significant association and so those factors did not affect the type of vascular access type. This study has emphasized the main vascular access being used at the different dialysis centers in the West Bank, Palestine and it establishes a base for future studies to evaluate the progression in this field toward the world-wide recommendations taking into consideration that the prevalence of ESRD in West Bank, Palestine is high in comparison to the industrialized countries.[31]
Table 8: Insertion site of each catheter type.

Click here to view



   Strengths and Limitations Top


This study included relatively a large number of patients undertaking HD in the West Bank. The number of the included patients in this study represents more than 82% of all HD patients' population in West Bank, Palestine.[32] Hence, the demographic characteristics of enrolled patients are very likely to be representative of the HD population in West Bank, Palestine. This study is the first of its type in our country and this might help establishing a national database for the ESRD patient and will be baseline for future follow-up studies.


   Conclusion and Recommendations Top


This study showed that there is a high proportion of HD patients with catheters especially temporary catheters in the West Bank, Palestine, and this may increase morbidity, mortality, and increased health care costs. However, proportion of AVF seems to be acceptable when compared with the neighboring countries but still needs more improvement to increase their use, especially at the beginning of HD. According to this, we recommend close follow-up of chronic renal failure patients for early AVF creation when they are expected to need HD and increase number of physicians who are well trained in tunneled catheters insertion. Reducing the catheter time use is essential to reduce the risks associated with dialysis catheters. Early referral and prompt creation of AVF or AVG needs to be implemented. Subclavian vein site insertion for HD catheters needs to be avoided.


   Ethical approval Top


The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of An-Najah National University. Full verbal and written consent has been obtained from patient's family.


   Acknowledgment Top


We thank the participants and medical and nursing staff in the HD units in the West Bank, Palestine, for their kindness and making the study possible.

Conflict of interest:

None declared.



 
   References Top

1.
United States Renal Data System. 2016 USRDS Annual Data Report: Epidemiology of Kidney Disease in the United States. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 2016.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
United States Renal Data System. 2010 USRDS Annual Data Report: Epidemiology of Kidney Disease in the United States. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 2010.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Vascular Access 2006 Work Group. Clinical practice guidelines for vascular access. Am J Kidney Dis 2006;48:S176-247.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Hirth RA, Turenne MN, Woods JD, et al. Predictors of type of vascular access in hemodialysis patients. JAMA 1996;276:1303-8.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Santoro D, Benedetto F, Mondello P, et al. Vascular access for hemodialysis: Current perspectives. Int J Nephrol Renovasc Dis 2014;7:281-94.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Besarab A. Resolved: Fistulas are preferred to grafts as initial vascular access for dialysis. Pro. J Am Soc Nephrol 2008;19:1629-31.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Jamesn JL, Loscalzo J. Harrison's Nephrology and Acid-Base Disorders. New York: McGraw-Hill Medical; 2013.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Polkinghorne KR, McDonald SP, Atkins RC, Kerr PG. Vascular access and all-cause mortality: A propensity score analysis. J Am Soc Nephrol 2004;15:477-86.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Stehman-Breen CO, Sherrard DJ, Gillen D, Caps M. Determinants of type and timing of initial permanent hemodialysis vascular access. Kidney Int 2000;57:639-45.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Polo JR, Vázquez R, Polo J, Sanabia J, Rueda JA, Lopez-Baena JA. Brachiocephalic jump graft fistula: An alternative for dialysis use of elbow crease veins. Am J Kidney Dis 1999;33: 904-9.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Nassar GM, Ayus JC. Infectious complications of the hemodialysis access. Kidney Int 2001; 60:1-3.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Bloembergen WE, Port FK. Epidemiological perspective on infections in chronic dialysis patients. Adv Ren Replace Ther 1996;3:201-7.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Bray BD, Boyd J, Daly C, Donaldson K, Doyle A, Fox JG, et al. Vascular access type and risk of mortality in a national prospective cohort of haemodialysis patients. QJM 2012; 105:1097-103.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Pisoni RL, Young EW, Dykstra DM, et al. Vascular access use in Europe and the United States: Results from the DOPPS. Kidney Int 2002;61:305-16.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Fissell RB, Fuller DS, Morgenstern H, et al. Hemodialysis patient preference for type of vascular access: Variation and predictors across countries in the DOPPS. J Vasc Access 2013;14:264-72.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
BMI Classification World Health Organization; 2004. Available from: http://www.apps.who .int/bmi/index.jsp?introPage=intro_3.html. Last accessed on August 2014.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Afifi A, Refaat H, Wahba AM, et al. Hemodialysis vascular access among chronic renal failure patients in Egypt. J Vasc Access 2002;3:164-8.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Ethier J, Mendelssohn DC, Elder SJ, et al. Vascular access use and outcomes: An international perspective from the dialysis outcomes and practice patterns study. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2008;23:3219-26.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Saeed Abdulrahman I, Al-Mueilo SH, Bokhary HA, Ladipo GO, Al-Rubaish A. A prospective study of hemodialysis access-related bacterial infections. J Infect Chemother 2002;8:242-6.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Qasaimeh GR, El Qaderi S, Al Omari G, Al Badadweh M. Vascular access infection among hemodialysis patients in Northern Jordan: Incidence and risk factors. South Med J 2008;101:508-12.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Polkinghorne KR, McDonald SP, Atkins RC, Kerr PG. Epidemiology of vascular access in the Australian hemodialysis population. Kidney Int 2003;64:1893-902.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Pisoni RL, Zepel L, Port FK, Robinson BM. Trends in US vascular access use, patient preferences, and related practices: An update from the US DOPPS practice monitor with international comparisons. Am J Kidney Dis 2015;65:905-15.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Astor BC, Eustace JA, Powe NR, et al. 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;16:1449-55.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Ng LJ, Chen F, Pisoni RL, et al. Hospitalization risks related to vascular access type among incident US hemodialysis patients. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2011;26:3659-66.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Wasse H, Kutner N, Zhang R, Huang Y. Association of initial hemodialysis vascular access with patient-reported health status and quality of life. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2007; 2:708-14.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Altaee KH, Theeb OA, Al-Timimi SM, Saeed HM, Alshamma I. Outcome and survival of temporary hemodialysis catheters: A prospective study from a single center in Iraq. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl 2007;18:370-7.  Back to cited text no. 26
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
27.
Kairaitis LK, Gottlieb T. Outcome and complications of temporary haemodialysis catheters. Nephrol Dial Transplant 1999;14: 1710-4.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Rayner HC, Pisoni RL. The increasing use of hemodialysis catheters: Evidence from the DOPPS on its significance and ways to reverse it. Semin Dial 2010;23:6-10.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Schwab SJ, Quarles LD, Middleton JP, Cohan RH, Saeed M, Dennis VW. Hemodialysis-associated subclavian vein stenosis. Kidney Int 1988;33:1156-9.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Barrett N, Spencer S, McIvor J, Brown EA. Subclavian stenosis: A major complication of subclavian dialysis catheters. Nephrol Dial Transplant 1988;3:423-5.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Khader MI, Snouber S, Alkhatib A, Nazzal Z, Dudin A. Prevalence of patients with end-stage renal disease on dialysis in the west bank, palestine. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl 2013; 24:832-7.  Back to cited text no. 31
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
32.
Center PH, editor. Health Annual Report Palestine 2013. Palestine: Ministry of Health; 2014. Available from: https://bit.ly/2RhNryP. Last accessed on June 2018.  Back to cited text no. 32
    

Top
Correspondence Address:
Faeq Kukhon
Department of Internal Medicine, Kent Hospital, Brown University, Rhode Island
USA
Login to access the Email id


PMID: 30804278

Rights and Permissions


    Figures

  [Figure 1]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5], [Table 6], [Table 7], [Table 8]



 

Top
   
 
 
    Similar in PUBMED
    Search Pubmed for
    Search in Google Scholar for
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  
 


 
    Abstract
   Introduction
   Methods
   Statistical Analysis
   Results
   Discussion
    Strengths and Li...
    Conclusion and R...
   Ethical approval
   Acknowledgment
    References
    Article Figures
    Article Tables
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed63    
    Printed0    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded20    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal