These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Outcomes of basilic vein transposition versus polytetrafluoroethylene forearm loop graft as tertiary vascular access.
    Author: Drouven JW, de Bruin C, van Roon AM, Oldenziel J, Zeebregts CJ.
    Journal: J Vasc Surg; 2019 Apr; 69(4):1180-1186. PubMed ID: 30528405.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Radial-cephalic arteriovenous fistula and brachial-cephalic arteriovenous fistula are the first and second choices for creating vascular access in dialysis patients as recommended by the National Kidney Foundation Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative. Basilic vein transposition or use of a forearm (polytetrafluoroethylene [PTFE]) loop graft is recommended thereafter. The aim of this study was twofold: first, to compare the outcomes and patency rates of patients treated with a basilic vein transposition with those of patients treated with a PTFE loop; and second, to identify patient-related factors of influence on patency rates. METHODS: Data collected in our prospectively maintained database of patients with chronic renal dysfunction requiring hemodialysis were analyzed. From April 2006 to August 2017, there were 55 patients with a basilic vein transposition and 75 patients with a PTFE loop included. Primary, primary assisted, and secondary patency rates were calculated. Multivariate analysis was used to identify factors of influence on survival. Incidence rates of complications and reinterventions were calculated and compared. RESULTS: Mean follow-up time was 29 months. A significantly higher 2-year primary assisted patency rate was found for the basilic vein transposition group (72.7% ± 6.5% vs 47.6% ± 6.2%; P < .01). The 2-year primary patency rates and secondary patency rates were comparable between basilic vein transposition and PTFE loop (25.1% ± 6.6% vs 13.7% ± 4.4% [P = .11] and 75.5% ± 6.5% vs 73.9% ± 5.3% [P = .17], respectively). Cox regression identified body mass index (hazard ratio [HR], 1.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05-2.98; P = .03) and age (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.32-0.91; P = .02) as predictors for failure regarding primary patency in PTFE loop patients. Previous catheter use (HR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.12-0.70; P = .006) and the presence of diabetes (HR, 3.32; 95% CI, 1.50-7.39; P = .003) were independent predictors for failure regarding primary patency in basilic vein transposition patients. The incidence rate of total complications was significantly higher in the PTFE loop group with 0.70 per patient-year (PY-1) compared with 0.28 PY-1 in the basilic vein transposition group (P = .001). In terms of intervention rate, a significantly higher percutaneous transluminal angioplasty rate and surgical revision rate were found in the PTFE loop group than in the basilic vein transposition group (1.77 PY-1 vs 1.05 PY-1 [P = .022] and 0.20 PY-1 vs 0.07 PY-1 [P = .002], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In this nonrandomized study, basilic vein transposition has better primary assisted patency, fewer complications, and fewer reinterventions compared with PTFE loop.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]