Department of Cardiac Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada; Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
Am J Kidney Dis. 2014 Apr;63(4):636-42. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2013.09.015. Epub 2013 Nov 13.
We previously have shown that buttonhole needling is associated with a reduction in hematoma and postulated that buttonhole needling may increase long-term survival of an arteriovenous fistula (AVF). The purpose of this study was to evaluate AVF survival and complications in buttonhole versus standard needling.
Long-term follow up of a randomized controlled trial in which participants were randomly assigned to standard or buttonhole needling and followed up until the AVF was abandoned or the study end date.
SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: 140 long-term hemodialysis patients in Calgary, Alberta.
Buttonhole needling with median time of exposure to the intervention of 13.2 (IQR, 7.8-19.4) months.
OUTCOMES & MEASUREMENTS: Patients were prospectively followed up for study outcomes. Median follow-up times were 17.2 (IQR, 11.9-37.8) and 19.2 (IQR, 12.5-41.0) months for standard and buttonhole needling, respectively (P=0.2). The primary outcome was median access survival in months. Other outcomes included assisted and unassisted patency rates, rates of surgical and radiologic interventions, and time to abandonment (months) of buttonhole.
Baseline characteristics were similar. The primary outcome, median access survival, was similar in both groups: 16.0 (IQR, 10.6-29.3) and 18.4 (IQR, 10.9-32.7) months for standard and buttonhole needling, respectively (P=0.2). There were 7 (10.1%) and 6 (8.6%) thromboses with standard and buttonhole needling, respectively (P=0.6). Median fistulogram rates were similar between techniques (P=0.2 with intention-to-treat analysis). Most patients (46 of 70) abandoned buttonhole needling by a median of 11.3 (IQR, 4.8-18.2) months. Median time to first infection for buttonhole needling was 11.1 (IQR, 4.9-30.0) months. There were no infections in standard needling of AVFs.
Findings are limited to patients needled by multiple hemodialysis nurses and not applicable to self-needlers.
AVFs with buttonhole needling did not have improved survival. The lack of survival benefit and higher risk of infection should be noted when promoting buttonhole needling.
我们之前已经表明,扣眼穿刺与血肿减少有关,并假设扣眼穿刺可能会增加动静脉瘘(AVF)的长期存活率。本研究的目的是评估扣眼穿刺与标准穿刺相比,对 AVF 存活率和并发症的影响。
这是一项随机对照试验的长期随访,参与者被随机分配至标准或扣眼穿刺组,并随访至 AVF 废弃或研究结束。
艾伯塔省卡尔加里的 140 名长期血液透析患者。
扣眼穿刺,中位暴露于干预的时间为 13.2(IQR,7.8-19.4)个月。
前瞻性随访患者的研究结局。标准和扣眼穿刺的中位随访时间分别为 17.2(IQR,11.9-37.8)和 19.2(IQR,12.5-41.0)个月(P=0.2)。主要结局为月的中位通路存活率。其他结局包括辅助和非辅助通畅率、手术和放射介入治疗率,以及扣眼穿刺废弃(月)时间。
基线特征相似。主要结局,中位通路存活率,两组相似:标准穿刺为 16.0(IQR,10.6-29.3),扣眼穿刺为 18.4(IQR,10.9-32.7)个月(P=0.2)。标准穿刺和扣眼穿刺分别有 7 例(10.1%)和 6 例(8.6%)血栓形成(P=0.6)。两种技术的瘘管造影率相似(意向治疗分析时 P=0.2)。大多数患者(70 例中的 46 例)在中位 11.3(IQR,4.8-18.2)个月时放弃了扣眼穿刺。扣眼穿刺的首次感染中位时间为 11.1(IQR,4.9-30.0)个月。标准穿刺的 AVF 无感染。
研究结果仅限于由多名血液透析护士进行穿刺的患者,不适用于自行穿刺者。
扣眼穿刺的 AVF 存活率没有提高。在推广扣眼穿刺时,应注意其缺乏生存获益和更高的感染风险。