Marcus Preston, Echeverria Angela, Cheung Mathew, Kfoury Elias, Shim Kevin, Lin Peter H
1 Michael E. DeBakey Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
2 University Vascular Associates, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Vasc Endovascular Surg. 2019 Feb;53(2):104-111. doi: 10.1177/1538574418813595. Epub 2018 Nov 29.
: In patients who receive chronic hemodialysis but do not have autogenous venous conduit for a native dialysis access, nonautologous grafts serve as an alternative conduit of choice. This study compared the clinical outcome of hemodialysis access using bovine carotid artery graft (BCAG) and prosthetic polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) graft in patients who receive chronic hemodialysis.
: An analysis of all patients undergoing hemodialysis using either BCAG or PTFE grafts from 2010 to 2017 was performed. Clinical outcomes were analyzed including graft patency as well as associated complications related to dialysis grafts and tunneled dialysis catheter (TDC).
: During the study period, 142 patients received BCAG and 128 patients received PTFE graft implantation for dialysis access. The mean duration from graft implantation to graft cannulation in the BCAG and PTFE group was 12.3 ± 8.5 days versus 43.5 ± 16.4, respectively ( P = .01). Bovine carotid artery graft group had a higher 2-year primary patency rate (33% vs 14%, P = .03) and assisted primary rate (57% vs 23%, P = .02) compared to the PTFE group. The 2-year secondary patency rates were similar between the 2 groups (56% vs 53%, P = .69). Complication rates in the BCAG and PTFE group was 1.69 ± 0.24 per patient-year versus 2.54 ± 0.48 per patient-year, respectively ( P = .01). Tunneled dialysis catheter-related infection was greater in the PTFE group compared to the BCAG group (10.87 ± 2.61 vs 5.69 ± 0.98 per 1000 TDC days; P = .02). Bovine carotid artery graft cohorts group required a mean of 1.69 interventions per patient-year, compared to 2.76 per patient-year for the PTFE group ( P = .03).
: Bovine carotid artery graft permits earlier cannulation for hemodialysis access with superior primary and assisted primary patency rates compared to PTFE grafts. Patients with BCAG experienced shorter indwelling TDC duration and less TDC-related complications compared to PTFE cohorts.
在接受慢性血液透析但没有自体静脉导管用于自体透析通路的患者中,非自体移植物是可供选择的替代导管。本研究比较了接受慢性血液透析的患者使用牛颈动脉移植物(BCAG)和人工合成聚四氟乙烯(PTFE)移植物进行血液透析通路的临床结局。
对2010年至2017年期间所有使用BCAG或PTFE移植物进行血液透析的患者进行分析。分析临床结局,包括移植物通畅率以及与透析移植物和隧道式透析导管(TDC)相关的并发症。
在研究期间,142例患者接受了BCAG,128例患者接受了PTFE移植物植入以建立透析通路。BCAG组和PTFE组从移植物植入到开始使用移植物进行穿刺的平均时间分别为12.3±8.5天和43.5±16.4天(P = 0.01)。与PTFE组相比,牛颈动脉移植物组的2年初级通畅率更高(33%对14%,P = 0.03),辅助初级通畅率也更高(57%对23%,P = 0.02)。两组的2年次级通畅率相似(56%对53%,P = 0.69)。BCAG组和PTFE组的并发症发生率分别为每位患者每年1.69±0.24次和2.54±0.48次(P = 0.01)。与BCAG组相比,PTFE组的隧道式透析导管相关感染更多(每1000个TDC日10.87±2.61次对5.69±0.98次;P = 0.02)。牛颈动脉移植物队列组每位患者每年平均需要1.69次干预,而PTFE组为每位患者每年2.76次(P = 0.03)。
与PTFE移植物相比,牛颈动脉移植物允许更早地进行血液透析通路穿刺,具有更高的初级和辅助初级通畅率。与PTFE队列相比,接受BCAG的患者TDC留置时间更短,TDC相关并发症更少。