Joel Cooper1, Adam H Power1, Guy DeRose1, Thomas L Forbes1, Luc Dubois2. 1. Division of Vascular Surgery, London Health Sciences Centre and Western University, London, Ontario, Canada. 2. Division of Vascular Surgery, London Health Sciences Centre and Western University, London, Ontario, Canada; Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada. Electronic address: Luc.Dubois@lhsc.on.ca.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Basilic vein transposition is recommended in patients who are not candidates for a radial or brachial artery to cephalic vein fistula for dialysis access. Both one-stage and two-stage procedures have their advantages and disadvantages. Which procedure results in improved outcomes remains unclear. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted of the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases for studies that compared one-stage and two-stage brachial-basilic vein transpositions. Abstracts and full-text studies were screened independently by two reviewers with data abstraction done in duplicate. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to identify differences in primary failure rates and 1-year primary and secondary patency rates. Study quality was assessed by a previously described tool designed for observational studies reporting on dialysis access outcomes. RESULTS: Of 1662 abstracts screened, 97 were selected for full-text review. Of these, eight studies (one randomized trial, seven observational studies) involving 882 patients met the inclusion criteria. The pooled odds ratio estimate for primary failure was 1.21 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73-1.98; P = .46), suggesting no difference in failure rate between one-stage and two-stage transpositions. Similarly, the estimated odds ratio for 1-year primary patency rate of 1.39 (95% CI, 0.71-2.72; P = .33) and 1-year secondary patency rate of 1.02 (95% CI, 0.36-2.87; P = .98) indicated no difference between the two groups. Study quality was limited by unclear outcome definitions, minimal control for confounding, and variable selection criteria. The decision to pursue a one-stage vs a two-stage procedure was often based on size of the basilic vein, with a two-stage procedure reserved for patients with smaller veins. CONCLUSIONS: Meta-analysis of the existing literature comparing one-stage and two-stage basilic vein transposition suggests no difference in failure and patency rates, despite the two-stage procedure's being used in patients with smaller basilic veins. These findings are limited by the small size, observational design, and inconsistent quality of included studies. Reserving a two-stage procedure for patients with smaller basilic veins appears justified, although the strength of the evidence is limited.
OBJECTIVE: Basilic vein transposition is recommended in patients who are not candidates for a radial or brachial artery to cephalic vein fistula for dialysis access. Both one-stage and two-stage procedures have their advantages and disadvantages. Which procedure results in improved outcomes remains unclear. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted of the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases for studies that compared one-stage and two-stage brachial-basilic vein transpositions. Abstracts and full-text studies were screened independently by two reviewers with data abstraction done in duplicate. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to identify differences in primary failure rates and 1-year primary and secondary patency rates. Study quality was assessed by a previously described tool designed for observational studies reporting on dialysis access outcomes. RESULTS: Of 1662 abstracts screened, 97 were selected for full-text review. Of these, eight studies (one randomized trial, seven observational studies) involving 882 patients met the inclusion criteria. The pooled odds ratio estimate for primary failure was 1.21 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73-1.98; P = .46), suggesting no difference in failure rate between one-stage and two-stage transpositions. Similarly, the estimated odds ratio for 1-year primary patency rate of 1.39 (95% CI, 0.71-2.72; P = .33) and 1-year secondary patency rate of 1.02 (95% CI, 0.36-2.87; P = .98) indicated no difference between the two groups. Study quality was limited by unclear outcome definitions, minimal control for confounding, and variable selection criteria. The decision to pursue a one-stage vs a two-stage procedure was often based on size of the basilic vein, with a two-stage procedure reserved for patients with smaller veins. CONCLUSIONS: Meta-analysis of the existing literature comparing one-stage and two-stage basilic vein transposition suggests no difference in failure and patency rates, despite the two-stage procedure's being used in patients with smaller basilic veins. These findings are limited by the small size, observational design, and inconsistent quality of included studies. Reserving a two-stage procedure for patients with smaller basilic veins appears justified, although the strength of the evidence is limited.
Authors: Stavros K Kakkos; Ioannis A Tsolakis; Spyros I Papadoulas; George C Lampropoulos; Evangelos E Papachristou; Nikolaos C Christeas; Dimitrios Goumenos; Miltos K Lazarides Journal: Front Surg Date: 2015-04-29
Authors: Jennifer M MacRae; Christine Dipchand; Matthew Oliver; Louise Moist; Serdar Yilmaz; Charmaine Lok; Kelvin Leung; Edward Clark; Swapnil Hiremath; Joanne Kappel; Mercedeh Kiaii; Rick Luscombe; Lisa M Miller Journal: Can J Kidney Health Dis Date: 2016-09-27
Authors: Hongyan Yu; Baoxian Huang; Joachim Wen Kien Yau; Sadhana Chandrasekar; Glenn Wei Leong Tan; Zhiwen Joseph Lo Journal: Ann Vasc Dis Date: 2018-09-25
Authors: Stavros K Kakkos; George C Lampropoulos; Konstantinos M Nikolakopoulos; Ioannis A Tsolakis; Spyros I Papadoulas; Evangelos C Papachristou; Dimitrios Goumenos; Miltos K Lazarides Journal: Vasc Specialist Int Date: 2018-09-30