Snuffbox arteriovenous fistulas have similar outcomes and patency as wrist arteriovenous fistulas.

OBJECTIVE

Radial artery-based wrist arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs) are commonly created as an initial upper extremity arteriovenous access. A more distal access site, such as the anatomic snuffbox AVF, can also be created. Although much has been written about wrist AVFs, outcomes of snuffbox AVFs are unclear. Our goal was to compare perioperative and midterm outcomes between these two types of distal access.

METHODS

The Vascular Quality Initiative database was queried for all patients undergoing snuffbox AVFs and wrist AVFs from 2011 to 2017. Unmatched and matched analyses were performed for baseline characteristics and outcomes at 6 months for ischemic steal, wound infection, and arm swelling. Multivariable analysis was performed for unmatched and matched analyses for primary patency, surgical or endovascular repair, and patient survival. Kaplan-Meier matched analysis was performed for primary patency, freedom from surgical or endovascular intervention, and survival.

RESULTS

We identified 4525 distal forearm fistulas: 179 (4%) snuffbox AVFs and 4346 (96%) wrist AVFs. The average age was 59 ± 14.7 years, and 72.3% of patients were male. There were no significant differences in baseline demographics or comorbidities of patients with snuffbox AVFs and wrist AVFs except that patients with snuffbox AVFs had fewer tunneled lines at access creation (70.2% vs 65.2%; P = .046) and had a lower American Society of Anesthesiologists class. There were no significant differences in unmatched outcomes at 6 months for ischemic steal (0.8% vs 1.9%; P = .336), wound infection (0% vs 0.2%; P = .649), and arm swelling (0.8% vs 1.3%; P = .592). Matched analysis showed no significant differences in baseline characteristics and outcomes at 6 months for ischemic steal (0% vs 1.8%; P = .146), wound infection (0% vs 0%), and arm swelling (0.9% vs 1.2%; P = .789). Kaplan-Meier matched analysis showed no significant differences between snuffbox AVFs and wrist AVFs at 6 months for primary patency (51% vs 48%; P = .61), freedom from endovascular intervention (84.5% vs 82.5%; P = .98), freedom from surgical intervention (90% vs 86%; P = .08), and survival (92% vs 96%; P = .1). In multivariable analysis of unmatched data, snuffbox AVFs and wrist AVFs had similar primary patency (hazard ratio [HR], 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75-1.26; P = .83), likelihood of surgical intervention (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.35-1.05; P = .074) and endovascular intervention (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.65-1.42; P = .83), and survival (HR, 1.47; 95% CI, 0.9-2.4; P = .128).

CONCLUSIONS

Snuffbox AVFs have midterm results similar to those of wrist AVFs.