Moyano M J, Salgueira M, Aresté N, Escalera B, del Toro N, Jiménez-Víbora E, Martínez-Puerto A I, Molas J R, Palma A
Servicio de Nefrología, Hospital Universitario Virgen Macarena, Avda Foctor Drediani, Sevilla.
Nefrologia. 2006;26(5):594-9.
As is universally accepted the best form of permanent vascular access for haemodialysis is the native arteriovenous fistula. A second and third options are the politetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) AV grafts and the cuffed, tunneled, internal catheters. The overall performance and complications of catheters is clearly inferior to AV fistula. There are not many studies that compare permanent catheters to grafts in terms of functionality, survival and complications.
We analyzed 81 vascular accesses carried out from october 99 to december 03 in 59 patients and during a follow-up period of 35 months. Two groups were considered. Group 1, catheters (n 42) and group 2, grafts (n 39). Clinical aspects, comorbidity index (Wright and Kanh), dialysis dose and complications and survival of the access were registered.
Both groups were similar in age, sex, time on haemodialysis, number of previous accesses and hospitalization days. Cardiovascular morbidity and comorbidity index were significantly higher in patients with catheter. While blood flow during dialysis was higher in grafts both groups showed no significant differences in parameters of efficacy of dialysis (Kt/V, TAC BUN and PCRn). Serum albumin was lower in patients with catheter. The number of accesses that failed was higher in the graft group being thrombosis the main complication followed by infection. Kaplan-Meier curves showed better accumulated survival of permanent catheters versus grafts (61,4% vs 9,8% at 35 months). The most frequent complication of catheter was infection while in the case of grafts it was thrombosis followed by infection.
Although they were placed in patients with higher comorbidity, cuffed, tunneled catheters showed less number of complications and better survival than PTFE grafts in our patients in haemodialysis. The main cause of failure of both vascular access was thrombosis followed by infection. The dose of dialysis obtained was no different in both groups. Cuffed, tunneled permanent catheters are a very interesting option in a number of patients in haemodialysis and they can be an option to consider in those patients with vascular difficulties and higher comorbidities.
众所周知,用于血液透析的最佳永久性血管通路形式是自体动静脉内瘘。第二和第三选择是聚四氟乙烯(PTFE)动静脉移植物以及带 cuff 的隧道式中心静脉导管。导管的总体性能和并发症明显逊于动静脉内瘘。在功能、生存率和并发症方面,将永久性导管与移植物进行比较的研究并不多。
我们分析了1999年10月至2003年12月期间59例患者进行的81次血管通路,并进行了35个月的随访。分为两组。第1组为导管组(n = 42),第2组为移植物组(n = 39)。记录临床情况、合并症指数(Wright和Kanh)、透析剂量以及通路的并发症和生存率。
两组在年龄、性别、血液透析时间、既往通路次数和住院天数方面相似。导管组患者的心血管发病率和合并症指数显著更高。虽然移植物组透析期间的血流量更高,但两组在透析效能参数(Kt/V、TAC BUN和PCRn)方面无显著差异。导管组患者的血清白蛋白较低。移植物组通路失败的次数更高,主要并发症是血栓形成,其次是感染。Kaplan - Meier曲线显示永久性导管的累积生存率优于移植物(35个月时为61.4%对9.8%)。导管最常见的并发症是感染,而移植物则是血栓形成,其次是感染。
尽管带 cuff 的隧道式导管用于合并症较高的患者,但在我们的血液透析患者中,其并发症数量少于PTFE移植物,生存率更高。两种血管通路失败主要原因都是血栓形成,其次是感染。两组获得的透析剂量没有差异。带 cuff 的隧道式永久性导管对于许多血液透析患者是一个非常有吸引力的选择,对于那些有血管问题和合并症较高患者来说可以作为一个考虑选项。