Hodges T C, Fillinger M F, Zwolak R M, Walsh D B, Bech F, Cronenwett J L
Section of Vascular Surgery, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH 03750, USA.
J Vasc Surg. 1997 Dec;26(6):1009-19. doi: 10.1016/s0741-5214(97)70014-4.
To compare dialysis access patency rates and identify risk factors for failure.
All access procedures at our institution from 1987 to 1996 were reviewed. Primary procedures were surgically implanted dual-lumen central venous hemodialysis catheters (SIHCs), peritoneal dialysis catheters (PDCs), arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs), and prosthetic shunts (PTFEs).
Five hundred eighty-five primary procedures (236 PTFEs, 87 AVFs, 112 SIHCs, and 150 PDCs) and 259 secondary procedures (215 PTFEs, 14 AVFs, 0 SIHCs, and 30 PDCs) were performed on 350 patients. By life table analysis, SIHCs exhibited the lowest primary patency rate (9% at 1 year; p < 0.0001), whereas PDCs had the highest primary patency rate (57% at 1 year; p < 0.02). The primary patency rates of AVFs and PTFEs was similar, with 43% and 41% 1-year patency rates, respectively (p = 0.70). Less-stringent reporting methods would have increased apparent 1-year patency rates by 9% to 41%. With regard to secondary patency, there was no significant difference between PTFEs and PDCs, with 1-year patency rates of 59% and 70%, respectively (p = 0.62), but PTFEs were more frequently revised. In addition, there was no significant difference between AVF and PTFE secondary patency rates, with 1-year patency rates of 46% and 59%, respectively. Early differences in patency rates for AVFs, PTFEs, and PDCs diminished over time, and at 4 years AVFs had the best secondary patency rate (p = 0.6). The most common reasons for access failure were: PTFEs, thrombosis; AVFs, thrombosis and failure to mature; SIHCs, inadequate dialysis; PDCs, infection and inadequate exchange. By regression analysis, a history of a previous unsalvageable PTFE was the only significant risk factor for failure of a subsequent PTFE (p < 0.01), and the risk of graft failure increased exponentially with the number of previous PTFE shunts. Diabetes was the only significant risk factor for failure of PDCs (p < 0.02; odds ratio, 2.0).
The patency rate for PTFEs is similar to that for AVFs, but AVFs require fewer revisions. When replacing a failed access graft, the risk of PTFE failure increases with the number of prior unsalvageable PTFE shunts. PDCs have excellent patency rates, but failure rates are doubled in patients with diabetes. Because of poor patency rates and inadequate dialysis flow rates, SIHCs should be avoided when possible. Reporting methods dramatically affect apparent patency rates, and reporting standards are needed to allow meaningful comparisons in the dialysis access literature.
比较透析通路的通畅率并确定失败的风险因素。
回顾了1987年至1996年在我们机构进行的所有通路手术。主要手术包括外科植入的双腔中心静脉血液透析导管(SIHCs)、腹膜透析导管(PDCs)、动静脉内瘘(AVFs)和人工血管分流术(PTFEs)。
对350例患者进行了585例主要手术(236例PTFEs、87例AVFs、112例SIHCs和150例PDCs)和259例二次手术(215例PTFEs、14例AVFs、0例SIHCs和30例PDCs)。通过寿命表分析,SIHCs的初始通畅率最低(1年时为9%;p<0.0001),而PDCs的初始通畅率最高(1年时为57%;p<0.02)。AVFs和PTFEs的初始通畅率相似,1年通畅率分别为43%和41%(p = 0.70)。不太严格的报告方法会使1年的表面通畅率提高9%至41%。关于二次通畅,PTFEs和PDCs之间无显著差异,1年通畅率分别为59%和70%(p = 0.62),但PTFEs更常需要进行修复。此外,AVF和PTFE的二次通畅率之间无显著差异,1年通畅率分别为46%和59%。AVFs、PTFEs和PDCs在通畅率上的早期差异随时间逐渐减小,4年时AVFs的二次通畅率最佳(p = 0.6)。通路失败的最常见原因是:PTFEs,血栓形成;AVFs,血栓形成和未成熟;SIHCs,透析不充分;PDCs,感染和交换不充分。通过回归分析,既往有不可挽救的PTFE病史是后续PTFE失败的唯一显著风险因素(p<0.01),且移植失败的风险随既往PTFE分流术的数量呈指数增加。糖尿病是PDCs失败的唯一显著风险因素(p<0.02;比值比,2.0)。
PTFEs的通畅率与AVFs相似,但AVFs需要的修复较少。当更换失败的通路移植时,PTFE失败的风险随既往不可挽救的PTFE分流术数量的增加而增加。PDCs有出色的通畅率,但糖尿病患者的失败率会加倍。由于通畅率低和透析血流量不足,应尽可能避免使用SIHCs。报告方法对表面通畅率有显著影响,需要报告标准以便在透析通路文献中进行有意义的比较。