Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Mais filtros

Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
J Vasc Access ; : 11297298211045505, 2021 Sep 15.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34524025


BACKGROUND: Quantitative physical examination (PE) indicators, including palpable pulsatility length and outflow scores, can be used to quantify stenosis severity at hemodialysis vascular access sites. It is known that the risk of high-shear-related thrombosis is increased when the minimal luminal diameter (MLD) of stenosis decreases. At present, MLD is measured using sonography or angiography. This study sought to determine the relationship between quantitative PE indicators and MLD and report their diagnostic performance in detecting patients with stenosis at a high risk of thrombosis. METHODS: We performed a retrospective case-control study using routinely collected data. We used the post-stenosis palpable pulsatility length (sPPL) and pulse-and-thrill based outflow score to assess the severity of AVF inflow and outflow stenosis, respectively. We recorded paired quantitative PE indicators and MLD before and after angioplasty in patients enrolled over a 4-month period. RESULTS: A total of 249 paired PE indicators and MLD measurements were obtained from 163 patients. A receiver operating characteristic curve analysis showed that an MLD cutoff value of <1.55 mm and an MLD of <1.95 mm discriminated sPPL = 0 and PESOS (physical examination significant outflow stenosis)/1- of the outflow score, respectively, from all other measurements, with the area under the curve values of 0.8922 and 0.9618, respectively. With sPPL = 0 and PESOS/1- of the outflow score as diagnostic tools to detect inflow stenosis with an MLD of ⩽1.5 mm and outflow stenosis with an MLD of ⩽1.9 mm at vascular access sites, sensitivity = 86.00% and 88.46%; specificity = 97.67% and 92.11%; positive predictive values of 97.73% and 92.00% and negative predictive values of 85.71% and 88.61%, respectively, were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Our preliminary results showed that physical examination can potentially be a diagnostic tool in detecting patients with stenosis who are at a high risk of thrombosis at hemodialysis vascular access sites with high diagnostic accuracy.

BMC Nephrol ; 21(1): 304, 2020 07 25.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32711458


BACKGROUND: Hyper-pulsatility of hemodialysis arteriovenous fistula (AVF) is the basic physical examination finding when there is outflow stenosis. The arm elevation test can also be utilized to detect outflow stenosis. If there is no significant outflow stenosis, the AVF should collapse, at least partially, because of the effect of gravity when the AVF-bearing arm is elevated to a level above that of the heart. However, if there is significant outflow stenosis, the portion of the AVF downstream of the stenosis will collapse, while the portion upstream of the stenosis will remain distended (Clin J Am Soc Nephro 8:1220-7, 2013). In our daily practice, when performing the arm elevation test, we not only observe the collapsibility of the access outflow but also palpate the outflow to identify a background thrill that sometimes disappears with the arm at rest, only to reappear when the arm is elevated. If there is no thrill upon arm elevation, we assume that the outflow stenosis is severe and refer to this condition as "physical examination significant outflow stenosis" (PESOS). The aim of this study is to characterize PESOS using percentage stenosis and Doppler flow parameters. METHODS: We performed a case-control study using data collected prospectively between June 2019 and December 2019. A pulse- and thrill-based score system was developed to assess the severity of AVF outflow stenosis. We recorded the outflow scores and Doppler measurements performed in 84 patients with mature fistulas over a 6-month period. Angiograms were reviewed to determine the severity of outflow stenosis, which was assessed by calculation of percentage stenosis. RESULTS: Receiver operating characteristic analysis showed that a cutoff value of ≥74.44% stenosis discriminated PESOS from other AVF outflow scores, with an area under the curve of 0.9011. PESOS diagnosed cases with ≥75% outflow stenosis in an AVF, with a sensitivity of 80.39%, a specificity of 78.79%, a positive predictive value of 85.42%, and a negative predictive value of 72.22%. CONCLUSIONS: PESOS can be used to diagnose ≥75% outflow stenosis in an AVF, with or without a significant collateral vein, and its diagnostic accuracy is high. The use of PESOS as an indicator for treatment implies that physical examination may represent a useful surveillance tool.

BMC Nephrol ; 20(1): 356, 2019 09 13.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31519166


BACKGROUND: Pulsatility is an important property of hemodialysis arteriovenous fistulas (AVF) and can be perceived by the fingers as a gradual decrease in strength downstream from the anastomosis along the main trunk of the fistula. The distance from the point at which the pulse becomes imperceptible to the anastomosis is termed the palpable pulsatility length (PPL); we considered this length may play a role in assessing the severity of inflow stenosis for hemodialysis fistulas. METHODS: This study was performed by retrospective analysis of routinely collected data. Physical examinations and fistula measurements were performed in a selected population of 76 hemodialysis patients with mature fistulas during half a year. Fistula measurements included the PPL before and after treatment and the distance between the anastomosis and the arterial cannulation site (aPump length). The aPump index (API) was calculated by dividing the PPL by the aPump length. Angiograms were reviewed to determine the location and severity of stenosis. PPL and API were used to detect the critical inflow stenosis, which indicates severe inflow stenosis of an AVF. RESULTS: Receiver operating characteristic analysis showed that the area under the curve was 0.895 for API and 0.878 for PPL. A cutoff value of API < 1.29 and PPL < 11.0 cm were selected to detect the critical inflow stenosis. The sensitivity was 96.0% versus 80.0% and specificity was 84.31% versus 84.31% for API and PPL, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: PPL and API are useful tools in defining the severity of pure inflow stenosis for mature AVFs in the hands of trained examiners with high sensitivity and specificity.

Falha de Equipamento , Fluxo Pulsátil/fisiologia , Diálise Renal/efeitos adversos , Dispositivos de Acesso Vascular/efeitos adversos , Grau de Desobstrução Vascular/fisiologia , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Constrição Patológica/diagnóstico , Constrição Patológica/etiologia , Feminino , Seguimentos , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Diálise Renal/instrumentação , Estudos Retrospectivos