Saran Rajiv, Elder Stacey J, Goodkin David A, Akiba Takashi, Ethier Jean, Rayner Hugh C, Saito Akira, Young Eric W, Gillespie Brenda W, Merion Robert M, Pisoni Ronald L
Division of Nephrology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kidney Epidemiology and Cost Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48103-4262, USA.
Ann Surg. 2008 May;247(5):885-91. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31816c4044.
To investigate whether intensity of surgical training influences type of vascular access placed and fistula survival.
Wide variations in fistula placement and survival occur internationally. Underlying explanations are not well understood.
Prospective data from 12 countries in the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study were analyzed; outcomes of interest were type of vascular access in use (fistula vs. graft) in hemodialysis patients at study entry and time from placement until primary and secondary access failures, as predicted by surgical training. Logistic and Cox regression models were adjusted for patient characteristics and time on hemodialysis.
During training, US surgeons created fewer fistulae (US mean = 16 vs. 39-426 in other countries) and noted less emphasis on vascular access placement compared with surgeons elsewhere. Significant predictors of fistula versus graft placement in hemodialysis patients included number of fistulae placed during training (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 2.2 for fistula placement, per 2 times greater number of fistulae placed during training, P < 0.0001) and degree of emphasis on vascular access creation during training (AOR = 2.4 for fistula placement, for much-to-extreme emphasis vs. no emphasis, P = 0.0008). Risk of primary fistula failure was 34% lower (relative risk = 0.66, P = 0.002) when placed by surgeons who created > or = 25 (vs. < 25) fistulae during training.
Surgical training is key to both fistula placement and survival, yet US surgical programs seem to place less emphasis on fistula creation than those in other countries. Enhancing surgical training in fistula creation would help meet targets of the Fistula First Initiative.
探讨外科培训强度是否会影响血管通路的类型及内瘘的存活情况。
国际上内瘘置入和存活情况存在很大差异。其根本原因尚不清楚。
分析了来自12个国家的透析结果和实践模式研究的前瞻性数据;感兴趣的结果是研究开始时血液透析患者使用的血管通路类型(内瘘与移植物),以及根据外科培训预测的从置入到初次和二次通路失败的时间。逻辑回归和Cox回归模型对患者特征和血液透析时间进行了校正。
在培训期间,与其他国家的外科医生相比,美国外科医生创建的内瘘较少(美国平均为16个,其他国家为39 - 426个),且对血管通路置入的重视程度较低。血液透析患者内瘘与移植物置入的显著预测因素包括培训期间置入的内瘘数量(培训期间置入的内瘘数量每增加2倍,内瘘置入的调整优势比[AOR]=2.2,P<0.0001)以及培训期间对血管通路创建的重视程度(对于非常重视到极其重视与不重视,内瘘置入的AOR = 2.4,P = 0.0008)。当由培训期间创建≥25个(对比<25个)内瘘的外科医生置入时,初次内瘘失败的风险降低34%(相对风险=0.66,P = 0.002)。
外科培训对内瘘置入和存活至关重要,但美国的外科培训项目似乎比其他国家对内瘘创建的重视程度更低。加强内瘘创建的外科培训将有助于实现“内瘘优先倡议”的目标。