Elizabeth A Kudlaty1, Jeanne Pan2, Matthew T Allemang2, Daniel E Kendrick2, Vikram S Kashyap2, Virginia L Wong3. 1. Department of Physiology and Biophysics, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH. 2. Division of Vascular Surgery and Endovascular Therapy, University Hospitals Case Medical Center (UHCMC), Cleveland, OH. 3. Division of Vascular Surgery and Endovascular Therapy, University Hospitals Case Medical Center (UHCMC), Cleveland, OH. Electronic address: Virginia.Wong@uhhospitals.org.
Abstract
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.
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 ESRDpatients 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 diabeticpatients (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. ESRDpatients who receive either of these procedures appear to be at the end stage of available access options.
Authors: Julien Al Shakarchi; Jay Nath; Damian McGrogan; Aurangzaib Khawaja; Melanie Field; Robert G Jones; Nicholas Inston Journal: Clin Kidney J Date: 2015-07-05