Long-Term Patency Between Brachiocephalic and Brachiobasilic Fistulas: A Single Institution Review.

Autor:	Patel RJ; Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA., Hamouda M; Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA., Straus S; Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA., Zarrintan S; Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA., Janssen C; Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA., Malas MB; Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA., Al-Nouri O; Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA. Electronic address: oalnouri@health.ucsd.edu.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Annals of vascular surgery [Ann Vasc Surg] 2024 Nov; Vol. 108, pp. 572-580. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Jul 01.
DOI:	10.1016/j.avsg.2024.06.006
Abstrakt:	Background: Dialysis access is a fundamental procedure performed by vascular surgeons. Commonly, upper extremity access is utilized via a brachiobasilic fistula (BBF) or brachiocephalic fistula (BCF). BCF is preferred due to ease compared to BBF without documented improved function. Few studies compare patency outcomes between BBF and BCF over time. Our goal was to evaluate the difference in outcomes between BBF and BCF. Methods: This is a retrospective review of patients with BCF or BBF between 2019 and 2022. Patients were split by procedure: BCF and BBF. Data collected included demographics, vein size, tunneled catheter, and previous access. Primary outcomes included primary patency (PP), primary assisted patency (PAP) and secondary patency (SP). Secondary outcomes included 30-day complications, access abandonment, interventions and mortality. Linear regression, Kaplan-Meier, and log-rank test were performed. Results: Our study had 184 patients, 109 (59%) with BCF and 75 (41%) with BBF. There were no differences in demographics except for body mass index and vein size (BBF: 4 vs. BCF: 3.6 mm, P = 0.020). There was no difference in PP at 1 year (41% vs. 47%, P = 0.547) or SP at 2 years (73% vs. 84%, P = 0.058) in BBF versus BCF. However, PAP was significantly greater in BCF (80% vs. 67%, P = 0.030) at 1 year. Secondary outcomes revealed no difference in wound complications (1% vs. 0%, P = 0.408), access abandonment (35% vs. 28%, P = 0.260), or number of interventions (1 vs. 1, P = 0.712) in BBF versus BCF. Mortality was significantly greater in the BBF patients (19% vs. 6%, P = 0.005). On adjusted analysis, BBF had 43 min longer operative time (P < 0.001) and 22 cc greater blood loss (P < 0.0001). Conclusions: In this single center review comparing BBF and BCF, no difference was seen between BBF and BCF in terms of PP or SP. Even with larger vein size, BBF did not confer a benefit in long term patency or access abandonment. Additionally, BBF did not confer decreased procedures to maintain patency and BBF had greater operative length and blood loss, as well as mortality. We believe this study demonstrates that for patients who must use an upper extremity location, when the cephalic vein is satisfactory, using the cephalic vein is preferred as it does not negatively impact long-term patency. (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu