Robert Shahverdyan1, Gerald Beathard2, Nasir Mushtaq3, Terry F Litchfield4, Shant Vartanian5, Klaus Konner6, William C Jennings7. 1. Vascular Access Center, Asklepios Clinic Barmbek, Hamburg, Germany. Electronic address: r.shahverdyan@asklepios.com. 2. Division of Nephrology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX. 3. Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Tulsa, OK. 4. Access Solutions, Blanchardville, WI. 5. Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, CA. 6. Vascular Access Unit, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany. 7. Department of Vascular Surgery, School of Community Medicine, University of Oklahoma, Tulsa, OK.
Abstract
RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Percutaneous arteriovenous fistulas (AVF) are created by establishing a proximal forearm anastomosis and offer a safe and reliable vascular access. This study compares the Ellipsys percutaneous AVF with a proximal forearm Gracz-type surgical AVF, chosen for comparison as it is constructed at the same anatomical site. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study of prospectively collected clinical data. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: All vascular access procedures conducted during a 34-month period were reviewed. The study groups comprised 89 percutaneous AVFs and 69 surgical AVFs. EXPOSURE: Percutaneous or surgical AVF placement. OUTCOME: AVF patency, function, and complications. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Patency rates for each AVF group were evaluated by competing risk survival analysis using a cumulative incidence function. Association of primary, primary assisted, and secondary patency with the AVF groups was examined by Cox proportional hazard models. RESULTS: Technical success was 100% for both groups. Average procedure times were 14 minutes for percutaneous AVFs and 74 minutes for surgical AVFs (P < 0.001). Proximal radial artery (PRA) was used in all percutaneous AVF cases. Inflow for surgical AVFs included radial (30%), ulnar (12%), and brachial (58%) arteries. Outflow veins for both groups were the cephalic and/or basilic veins. Access flow volumes, times to maturation, and overall numbers of interventions per patient-year were not significantly different. Cumulative incidence of primary patency failure at 12 months was lower for surgical AVF (47% vs 64%, P = 0.1), but secondary patency failure was not different between groups (20% vs 12%, P = 0.3). PRA surgical AVFs had similar primary patency (65% vs 64%, P = 0.8) but higher secondary patency failure rates than percutaneous AVFs at 12 months (34% vs 12%, P = 0.04). LIMITATIONS: Retrospective study with a relatively short follow-up period, and not all patients required hemodialysis at the end of study. CONCLUSIONS: Both percutaneous and surgical AVFs demonstrated high rates of technical success and secondary patency. Percutaneous AVFs required shorter procedure times. The rate of intervention was similar. When a distal radial artery AVF is not feasible, percutaneous AVF might offer an appropriate procedure for creating a safe and functional access, maintaining further proximal forearm surgical AVF creation options.
RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Percutaneous arteriovenous fistulas (AVF) are created by establishing a proximal forearm anastomosis and offer a safe and reliable vascular access. This study compares the Ellipsys percutaneous AVF with a proximal forearm Gracz-type surgical AVF, chosen for comparison as it is constructed at the same anatomical site. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study of prospectively collected clinical data. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: All vascular access procedures conducted during a 34-month period were reviewed. The study groups comprised 89 percutaneous AVFs and 69 surgical AVFs. EXPOSURE: Percutaneous or surgical AVF placement. OUTCOME: AVF patency, function, and complications. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Patency rates for each AVF group were evaluated by competing risk survival analysis using a cumulative incidence function. Association of primary, primary assisted, and secondary patency with the AVF groups was examined by Cox proportional hazard models. RESULTS: Technical success was 100% for both groups. Average procedure times were 14 minutes for percutaneous AVFs and 74 minutes for surgical AVFs (P < 0.001). Proximal radial artery (PRA) was used in all percutaneous AVF cases. Inflow for surgical AVFs included radial (30%), ulnar (12%), and brachial (58%) arteries. Outflow veins for both groups were the cephalic and/or basilic veins. Access flow volumes, times to maturation, and overall numbers of interventions per patient-year were not significantly different. Cumulative incidence of primary patency failure at 12 months was lower for surgical AVF (47% vs 64%, P = 0.1), but secondary patency failure was not different between groups (20% vs 12%, P = 0.3). PRA surgical AVFs had similar primary patency (65% vs 64%, P = 0.8) but higher secondary patency failure rates than percutaneous AVFs at 12 months (34% vs 12%, P = 0.04). LIMITATIONS: Retrospective study with a relatively short follow-up period, and not all patients required hemodialysis at the end of study. CONCLUSIONS: Both percutaneous and surgical AVFs demonstrated high rates of technical success and secondary patency. Percutaneous AVFs required shorter procedure times. The rate of intervention was similar. When a distal radial artery AVF is not feasible, percutaneous AVF might offer an appropriate procedure for creating a safe and functional access, maintaining further proximal forearm surgical AVF creation options.