Pediatric vascular access for hemodialysis: Feasibility and outcome

Mohamed Emad Eldin, Mohamed Farag, Reem Soliman, Mohamed Eissa, S. Regal, Hossam Zaher, Khalid Mowafy
{"title":"Pediatric vascular access for hemodialysis: Feasibility and outcome","authors":"Mohamed Emad Eldin, Mohamed Farag, Reem Soliman, Mohamed Eissa, S. Regal, Hossam Zaher, Khalid Mowafy","doi":"10.21608/ejsur.2024.357114","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: This study was conducted to evaluate different vascular accesses for hemodialysis in the pediatric age group in our locality as regards feasibility, complications, and outcomes. Patients and Methods: This was a prospective, descriptive, longitudinal nonrandomized study with an analytical component that was conducted on pediatric patients suffering from chronic renal failure. Patients were divided into two groups according to the clinical evaluation and duplex assessment. Group 1 was submitted to arteriovenous fistula (AVF). This group included 79 cases, while group 2 was submitted to a permanent central venous catheter (CVC). This group included 41 cases. Results: Primary patency among the studied groups was 88.6% for AVFs and 92.7% for permanent catheters at 3 months ( P=0.4 ). At 6 months, 82.3% of AVFs remained patent compared to 85.4% for permanent catheters ( P=0.6 ). At 9 months, AVFs had a patency of 79.7%atent versus 70.7% for permanent catheters ( P=0.2 ). At 12 months, AVFs had a patency of 78.5% compared to 51.2% for permanent catheters ( P=0.002 ). At 18 months, AVFs had a patency of 62% compared with 24.4% for permanent catheters ( P≤0.001 ). At 24 months, AVFs had a patency of 54.4%whereas permanent catheters had a patency of 4.9% ( P≤0.001 ). There were 22.8% with thrombosis and 0% with infection in AVFs and 34.15% with thrombosis and 26.83% with infection in permanent catheters. Conclusion: CVCs permit less effective hemodialysis and are accompanied by much higher complications and access failure rates in comparison to AVFs, resulting in earlier consumption of the vascular access reserve in patients facing years of renal replacement therapy. The detected high rate of transient uncuffed CVCs used temporarily in patients with AVF proposes frequent suboptimal vascular access planning in these patients","PeriodicalId":22550,"journal":{"name":"The Egyptian Journal of Surgery","volume":"200 1‐2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Egyptian Journal of Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21608/ejsur.2024.357114","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: This study was conducted to evaluate different vascular accesses for hemodialysis in the pediatric age group in our locality as regards feasibility, complications, and outcomes. Patients and Methods: This was a prospective, descriptive, longitudinal nonrandomized study with an analytical component that was conducted on pediatric patients suffering from chronic renal failure. Patients were divided into two groups according to the clinical evaluation and duplex assessment. Group 1 was submitted to arteriovenous fistula (AVF). This group included 79 cases, while group 2 was submitted to a permanent central venous catheter (CVC). This group included 41 cases. Results: Primary patency among the studied groups was 88.6% for AVFs and 92.7% for permanent catheters at 3 months ( P=0.4 ). At 6 months, 82.3% of AVFs remained patent compared to 85.4% for permanent catheters ( P=0.6 ). At 9 months, AVFs had a patency of 79.7%atent versus 70.7% for permanent catheters ( P=0.2 ). At 12 months, AVFs had a patency of 78.5% compared to 51.2% for permanent catheters ( P=0.002 ). At 18 months, AVFs had a patency of 62% compared with 24.4% for permanent catheters ( P≤0.001 ). At 24 months, AVFs had a patency of 54.4%whereas permanent catheters had a patency of 4.9% ( P≤0.001 ). There were 22.8% with thrombosis and 0% with infection in AVFs and 34.15% with thrombosis and 26.83% with infection in permanent catheters. Conclusion: CVCs permit less effective hemodialysis and are accompanied by much higher complications and access failure rates in comparison to AVFs, resulting in earlier consumption of the vascular access reserve in patients facing years of renal replacement therapy. The detected high rate of transient uncuffed CVCs used temporarily in patients with AVF proposes frequent suboptimal vascular access planning in these patients
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
用于血液透析的小儿血管通路:可行性和结果
目的:本研究旨在就可行性、并发症和疗效对我们当地儿童组血液透析的不同血管通路进行评估。患者和方法:这是一项前瞻性、描述性、纵向非随机研究,其中包含对慢性肾衰竭儿科患者的分析。根据临床评估和双工评估将患者分为两组。第一组为动静脉瘘(AVF)患者。该组包括 79 个病例,而第 2 组为永久性中心静脉导管(CVC)。该组包括 41 个病例。研究结果3个月时,研究组中动静脉瘘的初次通畅率为88.6%,永久导管的初次通畅率为92.7%(P=0.4)。6 个月时,82.3% 的动静脉瘘保持通畅,而永久导管则为 85.4% (P=0.6)。9 个月时,动静脉瘘的通畅率为 79.7%(P=0.2),而永久导管的通畅率为 70.7%(P=0.2)。12 个月时,动静脉瘘的通畅率为 78.5%,而永久导管的通畅率为 51.2% (P=0.002)。18 个月时,动静脉纤维导管的通畅率为 62%,而永久导管的通畅率为 24.4% (P≤0.001)。24 个月时,动静脉导管的通畅率为 54.4%,而永久导管的通畅率为 4.9% (P≤0.001)。动静脉导管中血栓形成占 22.8%,感染占 0%;永久导管中血栓形成占 34.15%,感染占 26.83%。结论与动静脉导管相比,CVC 的血液透析效果较差,并发症和通路失败率也高得多,导致面临多年肾脏替代治疗的患者更早地耗尽血管通路储备。在动静脉瘘患者中发现的临时使用的一过性无栓塞 CVC 的比例很高,这说明这些患者的血管通路规划往往不够理想。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Study of the value of core biopsy for establishing tissue diagnosis compared to excisional biopsy in enlarged cervical lymph nodes Fibrin glue versus sutures for mesh fixation in open repair of inguinal hernia Doppler-guided hemorrhoidal artery ligation with mucopexy versus stapled hemorrhoidopexy in the management of grades 3 and 4 prolapsed hemorrhoids: A prospective randomized clinical study Solitary fibrous tumor of the pleura Correlating preoperative clinicopathological factors with skin and/ or nipple–areola complex tumor involvement in postmastectomy specimens
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1