Comparison of Ellipsys Percutaneous and Proximal Forearm Gracz-Type Surgical Arteriovenous Fistulas.

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.