Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 1 de 1
Filtrar
Más filtros

Banco de datos
País/Región como asunto
Tipo del documento
Asunto de la revista
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Ann Vasc Surg ; 29(1): 90-7, 2015 Jan.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24952298

RESUMEN

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.


Asunto(s)
Derivación Arteriovenosa Quirúrgica/métodos , Implantación de Prótesis Vascular/instrumentación , Prótesis Vascular , Arteria Femoral/cirugía , Vena Femoral/cirugía , Fallo Renal Crónico/terapia , Diálisis Renal , Derivación Arteriovenosa Quirúrgica/efectos adversos , Prótesis Vascular/efectos adversos , Implantación de Prótesis Vascular/efectos adversos , Femenino , Arteria Femoral/fisiopatología , Vena Femoral/fisiopatología , Oclusión de Injerto Vascular/etiología , Oclusión de Injerto Vascular/fisiopatología , Oclusión de Injerto Vascular/terapia , Humanos , Estimación de Kaplan-Meier , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Ohio , Diseño de Prótesis , Infecciones Relacionadas con Prótesis/microbiología , Infecciones Relacionadas con Prótesis/fisiopatología , Infecciones Relacionadas con Prótesis/terapia , Estudios Retrospectivos , Factores de Riesgo , Factores de Tiempo , Resultado del Tratamiento , Grado de Desobstrucción Vascular
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA