Department of Radiology, The Catholic University of Korea School of Medicine/ St. Vincent's Hospital, Suwon, Republic of Korea.
Division of Nephrology, Department of Internal Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Hemodial Int. 2020 Jul;24(3):309-316. doi: 10.1111/hdi.12836. Epub 2020 May 5.
Arteriovenous fistula (AVF) is historically known to be the ideal option for vascular access (VA) for hemodialysis compared with arteriovenous graft (AVG). However, this approach has been recently questioned in the aging population because of their poor vessel quality and multiple comorbidities.
Data from a total of 2200 patients from the VA category of The Catholic Medical Center nephrology registry from March 2009 to February 2017 were analyzed. We compared VA patency and patient survival between two groups, AVF and AVG, according to age.
Compared with the AVG group, survival benefit in the AVF group continued even in patients ≥80 years. In the whole population, all the primary patency (PP), primary-assisted patency (PAP), and secondary patency (SP) measures were superior in the AVF group. With regard to subgroups, PP was comparable between the two groups in patients ≥65 years, whereas PAP and SP were superior in the AVF group even in septuagenarian patients who are from 70 to 79 years old. In patients ≥80 years, all the patency measures were comparable between the two groups. When the separate comparison of lower-arm AVF (or upper-arm AVF) and AVG, lower-arm AVF failed to demonstrate its superiority in any kind of patency in septuagenarian patients compared with AVG, whereas upper-arm AVF demonstrated its superiority in PAP and SP in septuagenarian patients. However, even upper-arm AVF failed to demonstrate its superiority in any kind of patency in patients ≥80 years.
Arteriovenous fistula if using upper-arm vessel showed the superior VA patency up to septuagenarian patients, whereas, in HD patients ≥80 years, AVF and AVG were comparable in VA patency.
与动静脉移植物 (AVG) 相比,动静脉瘘 (AVF) 历史上被认为是血液透析血管通路 (VA) 的理想选择。然而,由于血管质量差和多种合并症,这种方法在老年人群中最近受到质疑。
分析了 2009 年 3 月至 2017 年 2 月天主教医疗中心肾脏病登记处 VA 类别中 2200 名患者的数据。我们根据年龄比较了 AVF 和 AVG 两组的 VA 通畅性和患者生存率。
与 AVG 组相比,AVF 组的生存获益在≥80 岁的患者中仍然存在。在整个人群中,AVF 组的所有主要通畅率 (PP)、主要辅助通畅率 (PAP) 和次要通畅率 (SP) 均优于 AVG 组。就亚组而言,≥65 岁患者两组的 PP 相当,而≥70 岁(70-79 岁)患者的 PAP 和 SP 优于 AVF 组。≥80 岁的患者,两组的所有通畅率均相当。当分别比较下臂 AVF(或上臂 AVF)和 AVG 时,与 AVG 相比,下臂 AVF 在≥70 岁患者中任何类型的通畅率均无优势,而上臂 AVF 在≥70 岁患者中 PAP 和 SP 具有优势。然而,即使是在上臂 AVF 中,在≥80 岁的患者中也没有任何类型的通畅率具有优势。
在上臂血管使用动静脉瘘显示出直至 70 岁患者更好的 VA 通畅率,而在≥80 岁的 HD 患者中,AVF 和 AVG 在 VA 通畅率方面相当。