Intervention: The intervention group received MuST, while the control group underwent RL, with both groups followed for period of 12 months Outcomes: The primary outcome was to evaluate the AVF survival rate at 12 months, defined as unassisted patency. The secondary outcome included the assessment of assisted primary patency, complication rates, and pain perception. Results: There were no statistically significant differences between the MuST and RL techniques in unassisted patency (HR = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.38, 2.71, p = 0.98) or in assisted patency (HR = 0.74; 95% CI = 0.37, 1.47, p = 0.39). There were no statistically significant differences in the incidence of haematoma or thrombosis, and no infections occurred during the study period. The MuST presented an advantage over RL in the development and new aneurysms formation. There were no significant differences observed in pain perception between the two cannulation techniques. Limitations: The sample size was smaller than expected due to limitations in the selection of patients during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic phase. Conclusions: We could not definitively demonstrate a difference in AVF survival between MuST and RL. The low incidence of AVF thrombosis in both techniques shows that MuST can be a choice in patient safety and well-being when nursing teams decide which cannulation technique to perform. Trial Registration: Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with study number NCT05081648

--

Arteriovenous fistula,vascular access,cannulation,rope-ladder,pain,hemodialysis,MuST,randomized control trial