Suppr超能文献

一项关于血浆TFE和膨体聚四氟乙烯移植物在血液透析期间作为常规和早期血管通路的前瞻性评估。

A prospective evaluation of plasma-TFE and expanded PTFE grafts for routine and early use as vascular access during hemodialysis.

作者信息

Helling T S, Nelson P W, Shelton L

机构信息

Department of Surgery, University of Missouri, Kansas City School of Medicine.

出版信息

Ann Surg. 1992 Nov;216(5):596-9. doi: 10.1097/00000658-199211000-00012.

Abstract

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.

摘要

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。

相似文献

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

3
Upper arm graft fistula for hemodialysis.
J Vasc Surg. 1984 Sep;1(5):660-3. doi: 10.1067/mva.1984.avs0010660.

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验