PofoliaShared via Pofolia

Sensors· 2026Q1· Review

Artificial Intelligence and Sensing Technologies for Vascular Access in Hemodialysis: A Narrative Review

Concetto Sessa, Elettra Lomeo, Walter Morale, Tito Gianni et al.

Short summary

AI and sensing technologies show high retrospective accuracy (AUC 0.99) for predicting hemodialysis vascular access issues, but prospective, real-world performance drops significantly (AUC ~0.71) with limited evidence of clinical utility in reducing complications or costs.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Key points

  • AI and sensing technologies are being explored for hemodialysis vascular access care across multiple stages, from risk stratification to procedural support.
  • Retrospective studies show high predictive accuracy for AI models (AUC up to 0.99), but prospective validation in real-world settings yields lower performance (AUC ~0.71).
  • No current AI or sensing approach has prospectively demonstrated benefits in reducing thrombosis, prolonging patency, avoiding interventions, or lowering costs.
  • Technical constraints like power budgets and transmission bandwidth limit the deployment of wearable sensing devices.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Abstract

Vascular access performance determines the adequacy, safety, and cost of hemodialysis. Stenosis, thrombosis, cannulation difficulty, infection, and access-related cardiac stress remain major sources of morbidity. This narrative review examines artificial intelligence and sensing technologies for vascular access care, based on PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov searches through 22 August 2026 with citation chaining. Existing reviews have examined artificial intelligence in dialysis broadly or prediction models in isolation. In this review, the vascular access itself is kept as the unit of analysis, and the evidence is followed across four connected stages: systemic risk stratification; prediction of maturation, dysfunction, and complications from clinical, ultrasound, and multimodal data; longitudinal monitoring with optical, acoustic, vibration, thermal, and pressure sensors; and procedural support with robotics and visualization technologies. Reported discrimination is high in retrospective, recording-level analyses, reaching areas under the curve of 0.99 and sample-level accuracy of 100%, but falls to approximately 0.71 in longitudinal designs that predict future events in the same patients; patient-level external validation and calibration are also rarely reported. No approach has yet been demonstrated to reduce thrombosis, prolong patency, avoid interventions, or lower cost relative to standard care in prospective multicenter studies. Deployment is further constrained by power budgets, duty cycling, and transmission bandwidth in wearable devices. Technical feasibility should not be read as clinical utility.

The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Sensors, 2026 · DOI ↗

TakeawaysPremium
Ask the paperFree account

Continue with a free account

Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.

Continue free on the web

Sign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.

On your phone:

Field: Emergency Medical Services

Emergency Medical ServicesHealth Professions