ABSTRACT The Fistula First Breakthrough Initiative, founded in 2003, was responsible for changing the access profile in the United States, increasing the prevalence of arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs) by 50% and reducing that of arteriovenous grafts (AVGs). However, the concept that AVFs are always the best access for all patients has been challenged. Discussion points are: (1) the questionable survival benefit of AVFs over AVGs, if one takes into account the high rates of primary AVF failure; (2) the potential benefits of using AVGs for greater primary success; and (3) the questionable benefit of AVFs over AVGs in patients with shorter survival, such as the elderly. The high rate of primary failure and maturation procedures leads to prolonged use of catheters, and it is one of the weaknesses of the fistula first strategy. AVGs proved to be better than AVFs as a second access after the failure of a first AVF, and in patients with non-ideal vessels, with greater primary success and reduced catheter times. AVGs appear to have a similar survival to AVFs in patients older than 80 years, with less primary failures and interventions to promote maturation. The most recent KDOQUI guidelines suggest an individualized approach in access planning, taking into account life expectancy, comorbidities and individual vascular characteristics, with the aim of chosing adequate access for the right patient, at the right time, for the right reasons.