Nephrology and Dialysis Department, GB Grassi Hospital, Rome, Italy.
J Vasc Surg. 2011 Dec;54(6):1713-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2011.06.030. Epub 2011 Jul 31.
Vascular access (VA) complications account for a significant number of hospital admissions in dialysis and have substantial costs. A native arteriovenous fistula (AVF) cannot be successfully obtained in all patients. At our center, we established an autogenous brachial-basilic AVF (BBAVF) in the upper arm in patients with a failed forearm fistula or with superficial vessels that were unsuitable for preparing a good site for VA. In most of these patients, we resort to prosthetic materials for creating a functioning VA as the last strategy. The present study compared the outcomes of BBAVF and AV graft (AVG) in patients undergoing long-term hemodialysis in whom there was no other possibility of creating a VA.
We analyzed 57 complex patients, 27 randomized to receive AVG and 30 randomized to BBAVF, between 2002 and 2008. The Omniflow II Vascular Prosthesis (Bio Nova International Pty Ltd, North Melbourne, VIC, Australia), the latest-generation collagen-polyester composite, was used to create the prosthetic VA. Primary patency (PP) and secondary patency (SP) rates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier test. The log-rank test was used to compare PP and SP rates of the single VA.
Length of hospital admission time, total intervention time, and mean interval to the first venipuncture for dialysis were longer for BBAVF. In the early postoperative period, patients who received BBAVF had a complication rate similar to those who received AVG; however, patients who received AVG showed a higher rate of long-term adverse events. PP and SP rates were higher for BBAVF than for AVG, although this was not statistically significant for SP.
Our results show that BBAVF should be the first choice in patients with a good life expectancy and who can rely on an available temporary VA. However, given the shorter time to use, AVG could be an alternative in patients with compromised clinical conditions and in whom a temporary VA is not reliable, considering that the long-term outcome may be considered beneficial regardless.
血管通路(VA)并发症在透析患者的住院治疗中占很大比例,且费用高昂。并非所有患者都能成功获得自体动静脉瘘(AVF)。在我们中心,对于前臂瘘失败或血管较浅不适合建立 VA 良好部位的患者,我们在上臂建立自体肱动脉-贵要静脉 AVF(BBAVF)。在这些患者中,大多数人最后都会选择使用假体材料来建立有效的 VA。本研究比较了在没有其他建立 VA 可能性的长期血液透析患者中,BBAVF 和 AV 移植物(AVG)的治疗效果。
我们分析了 2002 年至 2008 年间的 57 例复杂患者,其中 27 例随机接受 AVG 治疗,30 例随机接受 BBAVF 治疗。使用最新一代的胶原-聚酯复合材料 Omniflow II 血管假体(Bio Nova International Pty Ltd,North Melbourne,VIC,Australia)来建立假体 VA。使用 Kaplan-Meier 检验计算主通畅率(PP)和次通畅率(SP)。对数秩检验用于比较单个 VA 的 PP 和 SP 率。
BBAVF 组的住院时间、总介入时间和首次静脉穿刺进行透析的平均间隔时间较长。在术后早期,接受 BBAVF 的患者的并发症发生率与接受 AVG 的患者相似;然而,接受 AVG 的患者的长期不良事件发生率较高。BBAVF 的 PP 和 SP 率高于 AVG,但 SP 无统计学意义。
我们的结果表明,对于预期寿命较长且可依赖临时 VA 的患者,BBAVF 应作为首选。然而,鉴于 AVG 的使用时间较短,对于临床状况较差且临时 VA 不可靠的患者,AVG 可能是一种替代方案,因为无论如何,长期结果可能被认为是有益的。