Division of Nephrology and Transplant Immunology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Am J Kidney Dis. 2014 Dec;64(6):918-36. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2014.06.018. Epub 2014 Aug 8.
The buttonhole technique is an alternative method of cannulating the arteriovenous fistula (AVF) in hemodialysis (HD), frequently used for home HD patients. However, the balance of risks and benefits of the buttonhole compared with the rope-ladder technique is uncertain.
A systematic review of randomized trials and observational studies (case reports, case series, studies without a control group, non-English studies, and abstracts were excluded).
SETTING & POPULATION: HD patients (both in-center conventional HD and home HD) using an AVF for vascular access.
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBM Reviews, and CINAHL from the earliest date in the databases to March 2014 for studies comparing clinical outcomes of the buttonhole versus rope-ladder technique.
Buttonhole versus rope-ladder cannulation technique.
The primary outcomes of interest were patient-reported cannulation pain and rates of AVF-related local and systemic infections. Secondary outcomes included access survival, intervention, hospitalization, and mortality, as well as hematoma and aneurysm formation, time to hemostasis, and all-cause hospitalization and mortality.
Of 1,044 identified citations, 23 studies were selected for inclusion. There was equivocal evidence with respect to cannulation pain: pooled observational studies yielded a statistical reduction in pain with buttonhole cannulation (standardized mean difference, -0.76 [95%CI, -1.38 to -0.15] standard deviations), but no difference in cannulation pain was found among randomized controlled trials (standardized mean difference, 0.34 [95%CI, -0.76 to 1.43] standard deviations). Buttonhole, as compared to rope-ladder, technique appeared to be associated with increased risk of local and systemic infections.
Overall poor quality and substantial heterogeneity among studies precluded pooling of most outcomes.
Evidence does not support the preferential use of buttonhole over rope-ladder cannulation in either facility-based conventional HD or home HD. This does not preclude buttonhole cannulation as being appropriate for some patients with difficult-to-access AVFs.
扣眼穿刺技术是一种用于血液透析(HD)的动静脉瘘(AVF)置管的替代方法,常用于家庭 HD 患者。然而,与绳梯技术相比,扣眼穿刺的风险与益处之间的平衡尚不确定。
对随机试验和观察性研究(病例报告、病例系列、无对照组研究、非英语研究和摘要除外)进行系统评价。
使用 AVF 进行血管通路的 HD 患者(包括中心常规 HD 和家庭 HD)。
我们从数据库最早日期至 2014 年 3 月检索了 MEDLINE、EMBASE、EBM Reviews 和 CINAHL,以比较扣眼与绳梯技术的临床结果。
扣眼与绳梯置管技术。
23 项研究被纳入。关于穿刺疼痛,证据相互矛盾:汇总的观察性研究表明扣眼穿刺的疼痛明显减轻(标准化均数差,-0.76[95%CI,-1.38 至-0.15]标准差),但随机对照试验中未发现穿刺疼痛有差异(标准化均数差,0.34[95%CI,-0.76 至 1.43]标准差)。与绳梯技术相比,扣眼技术似乎与局部和全身感染的风险增加有关。
总体而言,研究质量较差且存在很大的异质性,限制了大多数结果的汇总。
证据不支持在机构内常规 HD 或家庭 HD 中优先使用扣眼穿刺而非绳梯穿刺。这并不排除扣眼穿刺对于一些 AVF 难以触及的患者是合适的。