Annals of vascular surgery · 2014
The end stage of dialysis access: femoral graft or HeRO vascular access device.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kudlaty Elizabeth A, Pan Jeanne, Allemang Matthew T, Kendrick Daniel E, Kashyap Vikram S, Wong Virginia L
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Maintaining and establishing vascular access in end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients is complicated when they are poor candidates for traditional upper extremity access. Our objective was to compare our experience with 2 alternative dialysis accesses, the femoral arteriovenous graft (fAVG) and the Hemodialysis Reliable Outflow (HeRO), in patients with limited remaining options.
METHODS: A single institution, retrospective review of ESRD patients with fAVG or HeRO placed between May 2009 and February 2013 was performed. Adult patients were selected by reviewing all arteriovenous grafts placed at a single institution. Patient demographics, medical history, access characteristics, and outcomes were recorded from both institutional and dialysis center databases. Data were evaluated using Fisher's exact test, unpaired t-test for continuous variables, log-rank test, and univariate analysis.
RESULTS: A total of 56 accesses in 43 unique patients met these criteria: 35 fAVG and 21 HeRO; with 1 HeRO patient lost immediately to follow-up. Clinical variables were similar except the HeRO group had more diabetic patients (60% HeRO, 22.9% fAVG; P = 0.01). The average number of years on hemodialysis was 7.0 ± 1.0 for fAVG and 5.7 ± 0.9 for HeRO (P = 0.41). Primary patency was 40.5%, 18.7%, and 14.9% for fAVG and 29.0%, 29.0%, and 0% for HeRO at 6 months, 12 months, and 2 years (P = 0.67), respectively. Assisted primary patency was also similar, with 43.8%, 29.4%, and 13.8% for fAVG and 34.8%, 34.8%, and 17.4% for HeRO at 6 months, 12 months, and 2 years (P = 0.81), respectively. Secondary patency was 62.6%, 50.6%, 19.3% for fAVG and 68.0%, 53.5%, 38.3% for HeRO at 6 months, 12 months, and 2 years (P = 0.69), respectively. Average number of interventions to maintain patency for fAVG was 1.1 ± 1.47 and 1.65 ± 2.52 for HeRO (P = 0.35). Infectious complications occurred in 29% of fAVG and 15% of HeRO (P = 0.33).
CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received either fAVG or HeRO experience poor access patency. ESRD patients who receive either of these procedures appear to be at the end stage of available access options.
METHODS: A single institution, retrospective review of ESRD patients with fAVG or HeRO placed between May 2009 and February 2013 was performed. Adult patients were selected by reviewing all arteriovenous grafts placed at a single institution. Patient demographics, medical history, access characteristics, and outcomes were recorded from both institutional and dialysis center databases. Data were evaluated using Fisher's exact test, unpaired t-test for continuous variables, log-rank test, and univariate analysis.
RESULTS: A total of 56 accesses in 43 unique patients met these criteria: 35 fAVG and 21 HeRO; with 1 HeRO patient lost immediately to follow-up. Clinical variables were similar except the HeRO group had more diabetic patients (60% HeRO, 22.9% fAVG; P = 0.01). The average number of years on hemodialysis was 7.0 ± 1.0 for fAVG and 5.7 ± 0.9 for HeRO (P = 0.41). Primary patency was 40.5%, 18.7%, and 14.9% for fAVG and 29.0%, 29.0%, and 0% for HeRO at 6 months, 12 months, and 2 years (P = 0.67), respectively. Assisted primary patency was also similar, with 43.8%, 29.4%, and 13.8% for fAVG and 34.8%, 34.8%, and 17.4% for HeRO at 6 months, 12 months, and 2 years (P = 0.81), respectively. Secondary patency was 62.6%, 50.6%, 19.3% for fAVG and 68.0%, 53.5%, 38.3% for HeRO at 6 months, 12 months, and 2 years (P = 0.69), respectively. Average number of interventions to maintain patency for fAVG was 1.1 ± 1.47 and 1.65 ± 2.52 for HeRO (P = 0.35). Infectious complications occurred in 29% of fAVG and 15% of HeRO (P = 0.33).
CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received either fAVG or HeRO experience poor access patency. ESRD patients who receive either of these procedures appear to be at the end stage of available access options.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Arteriovenous Shunt, SurgicalBlood Vessel ProsthesisBlood Vessel Prosthesis ImplantationFemaleFemoral ArteryFemoral VeinGraft Occlusion, VascularHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateKidney Failure, ChronicMaleMiddle AgedOhioProsthesis DesignProsthesis-Related InfectionsRenal DialysisRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeVascular Patency