Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Boston Medical Center, Boston University, School of Medicine, Boston, Mass.
Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, University of California, Los Angeles, Calif.
J Vasc Surg. 2019 May;69(5):1552-1558. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2018.08.181. Epub 2018 Dec 21.
Although tapered dialysis access grafts are often used in an effort to prevent ischemic steal, their efficacy is uncertain. Our goal was to use real-world data to assess the performance of these grafts with respect to primary patency and ischemic steal.
The Vascular Quality Initiative database was queried from 2010 to 2017 for all patients undergoing tapered dialysis grafts in the upper arm. Multivariable analysis was performed to analyze primary patency, ischemic steal, and reinterventions.
We identified 3608 patients who received dialysis access grafts, 1473 tapered grafts and 2135 nontapered grafts. The mean age was 64.8 years, and 43.4% of the patients were male. Tapered grafts were used more often in female patients (60.5% vs 54%), nonwhite patients (53.3% vs 47.7%), patients with no previous access (28% vs 26.3%), grafts with an antecubital brachial artery origin (50% vs 44.4%), and grafts with an antecubital cephalic vein target (7.4% vs 3.7%; P < .05). Three-month outcomes between tapered and nontapered grafts were similar for wound infection (1.4% vs 2%; P = .31), ischemic steal (4.1% vs 4.6%; P = .58), and arm swelling (3.5% vs 2.9%; P = .38). Multivariable analyses revealed that in comparison to nontapered grafts, tapered grafts did not affect primary patency rates (hazard ratio [HR], 1.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.96-1.42; P = .11), ischemic steal (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.64-1.65; P = .92), difference in endovascular reintervention (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.74-1.16; P = .5), or operative reintervention (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.86-1.82; P = .24).
Tapered grafts for upper extremity arteriovenous access do not affect primary patency, development of steal, or endovascular reintervention in comparison to nontapered grafts. Our findings do not support the routine use of these grafts in dialysis access to improve outcomes.
尽管锥形透析移植物常用于防止缺血性窃血,但它们的疗效尚不确定。我们的目标是使用真实世界的数据评估这些移植物在主要通畅性和缺血性窃血方面的表现。
从 2010 年到 2017 年,血管质量倡议数据库对所有在上臂接受锥形透析移植物的患者进行了查询。采用多变量分析来分析主要通畅性、缺血性窃血和再干预情况。
我们确定了 3608 名接受透析移植物的患者,其中 1473 名接受了锥形移植物,2135 名接受了非锥形移植物。平均年龄为 64.8 岁,43.4%的患者为男性。锥形移植物在女性患者中(60.5%比 54%)、非白人患者中(53.3%比 47.7%)、无既往通路的患者中(28%比 26.3%)、肱动脉起源的移植物中(50%比 44.4%)和贵要静脉目标的移植物中(7.4%比 3.7%;P<.05)更常使用。锥形和非锥形移植物的 3 个月结局在伤口感染(1.4%比 2%;P=.31)、缺血性窃血(4.1%比 4.6%;P=.58)和手臂肿胀(3.5%比 2.9%;P=.38)方面相似。多变量分析显示,与非锥形移植物相比,锥形移植物对主要通畅率(危险比[HR],1.17;95%置信区间[CI],0.96-1.42;P=.11)、缺血性窃血(HR,1.03;95%CI,0.64-1.65;P=.92)、血管内再干预(HR,1.08;95%CI,0.74-1.16;P=.5)或手术再干预(HR,1.25;95%CI,0.86-1.82;P=.24)无影响。
与非锥形移植物相比,上肢动静脉通路的锥形移植物不会影响主要通畅性、窃血的发生或血管内再干预。我们的发现不支持在透析通路中常规使用这些移植物来改善结局。