Secondary interventions in patients with implantable cardiac devices and ipsilateral arteriovenous access.

OBJECTIVE

The number of patients with end-stage renal disease who require implantable cardiac devices is increasing. Rates of secondary interventions or fistula failure are not well studied in patients who have arteriovenous fistula (AVF) access placed on the ipsilateral side as a pacemaker. This study aimed to compare central vein-related interventions and failure rates of arteriovenous access in patients with pacemakers placed on the ipsilateral vs contralateral side.

METHODS

A retrospective review of a prospectively collected database at a single high-volume dialysis institution was performed; all patients 18 years or older who had both arteriovenous access and a pacemaker were included. Data points included the number of interventions such as thrombectomy, percutaneous transluminal angioplasty, and stent placement, as well as time to first intervention and failure of the fistula or graft. Patients with an implantable cardiac device who had contralateral AVF access were compared with AVF ipsilateral access using a t-test and Kaplan-Meier curves for primary patency. Outcomes evaluated included number of interventions and time to intervention from access creation.

RESULTS

A total of 32 patients were identified; 20 had arteriovenous access on the contralateral side from the pacemaker and 12 had access on the ipsilateral side. In the contralateral group, there were a mean of 3.6 percutaneous transluminal angioplasties per patient (range, 1-12). In the ipsilateral group, there were an average of 2.8 percutaneous transluminal angioplasties per patient (range, 1-6). There was no difference in intervention rates between these cohorts; however, the time to intervention was increased in patients who had arteriovenous access on the contralateral side to their pacemaker (9.5 vs 19.5 months; P < .05). Patency rates did not differ (P = .068).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no difference in intervention rates between ipsilateral and contralateral patients; however, the time to intervention was increased in patients who had arteriovenous access on the contralateral side to their pacemaker (9.5 months vs 19.5 months). This study was limited by its lack of power. Patency rates did not differ (P = .068). Ipsilateral access placement should be considered rather than abandoning access in that extremity.