Helling T S, Nelson P W, Shelton L
Department of Surgery, University of Missouri, Kansas City School of Medicine.
Ann Surg. 1992 Nov;216(5):596-9. doi: 10.1097/00000658-199211000-00012.
The use of prosthetic grafts as vascular access for chronic hemodialysis is frequently necessary in patients with end-stage renal disease. Most commonly, expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (e-PTFE) has been employed because of ease of handling, tissue inertness, and acceptable long-term patency. Delay in use to allow for tissue ingrowth, however, has often required placement of temporary access devices. The authors have undertaken evaluation of a new material, plasma polymerized woven dacron Plasma-TFE, in a prospective randomized trial (Plasma-TFE VA) to compare clinical behavior against e-PTFE grafts, and we have used the Plasma-TFE grafts in an additional group of patients (Plasma-TFE AVA) as early access (within 1 week of implantation). Twenty-one Plasma-TFE grafts were implanted in 19 patients and 19 e-PTFE grafts were implanted in 17 patients in a prospective randomized fashion. Additionally, 31 Plasma-TFE grafts were implanted in 31 nonrandomized patients for early access. Primary patency rates in Plasma-TFE VA and e-PTFE grafts were equivalent at 12 months (0.471 and 0.556). When Plasma-TFE AVA primary patency was included (0.621), comparisons were not statistically significant (p = 0.50). Similarly, secondary patency rates among the three groups did not differ (cumulative proportion patent at 12 months: Plasma-TFE VA 0.403, e-PTFE 0.658, Plasma-TFE AVA 0.510). In considering after-revision patency after graft thrombosis, however, the Plasma-TFE grafts (both VA and AVA) performed significantly more poorly (p = 0.027) than e-PTFE grafts. Incidence of graft infection, wound infection, arm edema, hematoma from use, and occurrence of distal limb ischemia between Plasma-TFE (VA and AVA) and e-PTFE did not differ statistically. The authors conclude that Plasma-TFE compares favorably to e-PTFE with respect to primary and secondary patency and nonthrombotic complications, even with early use. Plasma-TFE does not perform as well as e-PTFE, however, after graft thrombosis.
对于终末期肾病患者,使用人工血管作为慢性血液透析的血管通路常常是必要的。最常用的是膨体聚四氟乙烯(e-PTFE),因为其易于操作、组织惰性以及可接受的长期通畅率。然而,为了等待组织长入而延迟使用,往往需要放置临时血管通路装置。作者进行了一项前瞻性随机试验(Plasma-TFE VA),评估一种新型材料——等离子体聚合编织涤纶Plasma-TFE,以比较其与e-PTFE人工血管的临床性能,并且在另一组患者(Plasma-TFE AVA)中,我们将Plasma-TFE人工血管作为早期血管通路(植入后1周内)使用。以前瞻性随机方式,在19例患者中植入了21条Plasma-TFE人工血管,在17例患者中植入了19条e-PTFE人工血管。此外,在31例非随机患者中植入了31条Plasma-TFE人工血管用于早期血管通路。Plasma-TFE VA组和e-PTFE人工血管组在12个月时的初级通畅率相当(分别为0.471和0.556)。当纳入Plasma-TFE AVA组初级通畅率(0.621)时,比较无统计学意义(p = 0.50)。同样,三组间的次级通畅率也无差异(12个月时的累积通畅比例:Plasma-TFE VA组0.403,e-PTFE组0.658,Plasma-TFE AVA组0.510)。然而,在考虑人工血管血栓形成后的翻修后通畅情况时,Plasma-TFE人工血管(VA组和AVA组)的表现明显比e-PTFE人工血管差(p = 0.027)。Plasma-TFE(VA组和AVA组)与e-PTFE人工血管在人工血管感染、伤口感染、手臂水肿、使用引起血肿以及远端肢体缺血发生率方面无统计学差异。作者得出结论,即使早期使用,Plasma-TFE在初级和次级通畅率以及非血栓形成并发症方面与e-PTFE相当。然而,在人工血管血栓形成后,Plasma-TFE的表现不如e-PTFE。