We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Longitudinal comparison of dialysis access methods: risk factors for failure.
Journal of Vascular Surgery 1997 December
PURPOSE: To compare dialysis access patency rates and identify risk factors for failure.
METHODS: All access procedures at our institution from 1987 to 1996 were reviewed. Primary procedures were surgically implanted dual-lumen central venous hemodialysis catheters (SIHCs), peritoneal dialysis catheters (PDCs), arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs), and prosthetic shunts (PTFEs).
RESULTS: Five hundred eighty-five primary procedures (236 PTFEs, 87 AVFs, 112 SIHCs, and 150 PDCs) and 259 secondary procedures (215 PTFEs, 14 AVFs, 0 SIHCs, and 30 PDCs) were performed on 350 patients. By life table analysis, SIHCs exhibited the lowest primary patency rate (9% at 1 year; p < 0.0001), whereas PDCs had the highest primary patency rate (57% at 1 year; p < 0.02). The primary patency rates of AVFs and PTFEs was similar, with 43% and 41% 1-year patency rates, respectively (p = 0.70). Less-stringent reporting methods would have increased apparent 1-year patency rates by 9% to 41%. With regard to secondary patency, there was no significant difference between PTFEs and PDCs, with 1-year patency rates of 59% and 70%, respectively (p = 0.62), but PTFEs were more frequently revised. In addition, there was no significant difference between AVF and PTFE secondary patency rates, with 1-year patency rates of 46% and 59%, respectively. Early differences in patency rates for AVFs, PTFEs, and PDCs diminished over time, and at 4 years AVFs had the best secondary patency rate (p = 0.6). The most common reasons for access failure were: PTFEs, thrombosis; AVFs, thrombosis and failure to mature; SIHCs, inadequate dialysis; PDCs, infection and inadequate exchange. By regression analysis, a history of a previous unsalvageable PTFE was the only significant risk factor for failure of a subsequent PTFE (p < 0.01), and the risk of graft failure increased exponentially with the number of previous PTFE shunts. Diabetes was the only significant risk factor for failure of PDCs (p < 0.02; odds ratio, 2.0).
CONCLUSIONS: The patency rate for PTFEs is similar to that for AVFs, but AVFs require fewer revisions. When replacing a failed access graft, the risk of PTFE failure increases with the number of prior unsalvageable PTFE shunts. PDCs have excellent patency rates, but failure rates are doubled in patients with diabetes. Because of poor patency rates and inadequate dialysis flow rates, SIHCs should be avoided when possible. Reporting methods dramatically affect apparent patency rates, and reporting standards are needed to allow meaningful comparisons in the dialysis access literature.
METHODS: All access procedures at our institution from 1987 to 1996 were reviewed. Primary procedures were surgically implanted dual-lumen central venous hemodialysis catheters (SIHCs), peritoneal dialysis catheters (PDCs), arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs), and prosthetic shunts (PTFEs).
RESULTS: Five hundred eighty-five primary procedures (236 PTFEs, 87 AVFs, 112 SIHCs, and 150 PDCs) and 259 secondary procedures (215 PTFEs, 14 AVFs, 0 SIHCs, and 30 PDCs) were performed on 350 patients. By life table analysis, SIHCs exhibited the lowest primary patency rate (9% at 1 year; p < 0.0001), whereas PDCs had the highest primary patency rate (57% at 1 year; p < 0.02). The primary patency rates of AVFs and PTFEs was similar, with 43% and 41% 1-year patency rates, respectively (p = 0.70). Less-stringent reporting methods would have increased apparent 1-year patency rates by 9% to 41%. With regard to secondary patency, there was no significant difference between PTFEs and PDCs, with 1-year patency rates of 59% and 70%, respectively (p = 0.62), but PTFEs were more frequently revised. In addition, there was no significant difference between AVF and PTFE secondary patency rates, with 1-year patency rates of 46% and 59%, respectively. Early differences in patency rates for AVFs, PTFEs, and PDCs diminished over time, and at 4 years AVFs had the best secondary patency rate (p = 0.6). The most common reasons for access failure were: PTFEs, thrombosis; AVFs, thrombosis and failure to mature; SIHCs, inadequate dialysis; PDCs, infection and inadequate exchange. By regression analysis, a history of a previous unsalvageable PTFE was the only significant risk factor for failure of a subsequent PTFE (p < 0.01), and the risk of graft failure increased exponentially with the number of previous PTFE shunts. Diabetes was the only significant risk factor for failure of PDCs (p < 0.02; odds ratio, 2.0).
CONCLUSIONS: The patency rate for PTFEs is similar to that for AVFs, but AVFs require fewer revisions. When replacing a failed access graft, the risk of PTFE failure increases with the number of prior unsalvageable PTFE shunts. PDCs have excellent patency rates, but failure rates are doubled in patients with diabetes. Because of poor patency rates and inadequate dialysis flow rates, SIHCs should be avoided when possible. Reporting methods dramatically affect apparent patency rates, and reporting standards are needed to allow meaningful comparisons in the dialysis access literature.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app