[Value of preserved saphenous vein graft for the creation of access ports in hemodialyzed patients: report of 309 cases].

INTRODUCTION: Biological grafts are rarely used for the creation of vascular access, despite their many advantages. Our group prefers to use distal vascular accesses with interposition of a biological graft when direct access cannot be achieved. The objective of this study was to determine the long-term patency and the complication rate of a series of 309 vascular access procedures using a preserved saphenous (PS) vein homograft.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: 410 (27%) of the 1,500 vascular access procedures performed by our group required the use of a graft, including 376 PS vein homografts (25%). This retrospective study comprised complete data collection for 309 arteriovenous fistulas (AVF) using preserved saphenous (PS) vein graft in the forearm performed in 267 patients between 1985 and 2000. Primary patency was defined as the interval between creation of the vascular access and the first complication requiring surgical or radiological correction; secondary patency was defined as the interval between creation and loss of the graft, with or without revision of the fistula. Survival rates were calculated according to the Kaplan-Meier method. Inter-group comparison was performed by the Logrank test and analysis of variance was performed by logistic regression.

RESULTS: Primary patency rates were 77%, 40% and 27% at 1,2 and 5 years, respectively. Secondary patency rates were 79% and 47% at 1 year and 5 years, respectively. The thrombosis rate was 42%. Two episodes of thrombosis occurred in 25% of grafts and 3 episodes were observed in 10% of cases. Infection rates were 1.9% postoperatively and 5% after dialysis, respectively. An aneurysm occurred on 10% of grafts. The operator's experience (RR = 1.58; p < 0.05) and diabetic nephropathy (RR = 1.89; p = 0.059) significantly influenced graft patency. In contrast, the position of the graft, the fact that it crossed the elbow joint, and the site of the arterial anastomosis did not have any negative impact on graft patency.

DISCUSSION: Preservation of the patient's vascular capital is an essential objective in patients with chronic renal insufficiency, which is sometimes difficult to reconcile with the need to create vascular accesses with a long life span. The strategic choice between a distal access requiring a graft and a direct proximal access depends on the clinical context: cardiac function, waiting list for renal transplantation. Our preferred material in the case of bypass graft is the PS graft, as it presents the same resistance and the same patency rates as synthetic grafts, without the associated septic complications.

CONCLUSION: The PS vein graft is a good material for the creation of vascular accesses with similar patency rates to those of prosthetic grafts. Vein grafts present a number of advantages, particularly a greater ease of use facilitating distal implantation of the graft and a low infection rate.