Comparison of Acuseal and Standard ePTFE Vascular Grafts for Hemodialysis: A Retrospective Case Series

Louisa M. S. Gerhardt, A. Bock, R. Marti, S. Segerer
{"title":"Comparison of Acuseal and Standard ePTFE Vascular Grafts for Hemodialysis: A Retrospective Case Series","authors":"Louisa M. S. Gerhardt, A. Bock, R. Marti, S. Segerer","doi":"10.2174/1874303X01912010004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n Grafts, which allow early cannulation have been increasingly used to avoid starting dialysis via tunneled hemodialysis catheters. As we noted graft failures in patients with early cannulation grafts, we reviewed the outcome of these grafts and compared it to ePTFE grafts.\n \n \n \n We retrospectively analyzed time to first intervention, primary and secondary patency rates as well as the number of interventions needed to maintain patency in patients who received an early cannulation graft (GORE® ACUSEAL, acuseal) or an ePTFE (GORE-TEX®) vascular graft between January 2016 and November 2017 in our medical center.\n \n \n \n 12 patients who had received an acuseal vascular graft were compared with 13 patients with an ePTFE vascular graft. The mean time to first intervention was similar in both groups. On average 0.33 interventions per graft were needed per month to maintain patency in the acuseal group, and 0.08 in the ePTFE group (p = 0.02). The primary patency rate did not differ significantly between the groups. The secondary patency rate at the end of the observation period was significantly worse in the acuseal group (p = 0.02). Four acuseal grafts were lost after a mean of 202 days, whereas none of the ePTFE grafts was lost.\n \n \n \n Our data is consistent with our clinical impression of an increased number of interventions and lower longevity of the acuseal vascular graft. These data need conformation in a larger cohort.\n","PeriodicalId":38952,"journal":{"name":"Open Urology and Nephrology Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Urology and Nephrology Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2174/1874303X01912010004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Grafts, which allow early cannulation have been increasingly used to avoid starting dialysis via tunneled hemodialysis catheters. As we noted graft failures in patients with early cannulation grafts, we reviewed the outcome of these grafts and compared it to ePTFE grafts. We retrospectively analyzed time to first intervention, primary and secondary patency rates as well as the number of interventions needed to maintain patency in patients who received an early cannulation graft (GORE® ACUSEAL, acuseal) or an ePTFE (GORE-TEX®) vascular graft between January 2016 and November 2017 in our medical center. 12 patients who had received an acuseal vascular graft were compared with 13 patients with an ePTFE vascular graft. The mean time to first intervention was similar in both groups. On average 0.33 interventions per graft were needed per month to maintain patency in the acuseal group, and 0.08 in the ePTFE group (p = 0.02). The primary patency rate did not differ significantly between the groups. The secondary patency rate at the end of the observation period was significantly worse in the acuseal group (p = 0.02). Four acuseal grafts were lost after a mean of 202 days, whereas none of the ePTFE grafts was lost. Our data is consistent with our clinical impression of an increased number of interventions and lower longevity of the acuseal vascular graft. These data need conformation in a larger cohort.
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
Acusail和标准ePTFE血管移植物用于血液透析的比较:一个回顾性病例系列
允许早期插管的移植物已越来越多地用于避免通过隧道式血液透析导管开始透析。当我们注意到早期插管移植物患者的移植物失败时,我们回顾了这些移植物的结果,并将其与ePTFE移植物进行了比较。我们回顾性分析了2016年1月至2017年11月在我们的医疗中心接受早期插管移植物(GORE®ACUSEAL,acusal)或ePTFE(GORE-TEX®)血管移植物的患者的首次干预时间、初次和二次通畅率以及维持通畅所需的干预次数。将12名接受过耳廓血管移植物的患者与13名接受ePTFE血管移植物患者进行比较。两组患者首次干预的平均时间相似。平均每个移植物每月需要0.33次干预来维持通畅,ePTFE组每月需要0.08次干预(p=0.02)。两组之间的主要通畅率没有显著差异。在观察期结束时,听觉组的二次通畅率明显较差(p=0.02)。平均202天后,四个听觉移植物丢失,而ePTFE移植物没有丢失。我们的数据与我们的临床印象一致,即介入次数增加,血管移植寿命缩短。这些数据需要在更大的队列中进行确认。
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
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
期刊最新文献
Does Circumplast Ring Offer Safe Alternative to Standard Plastibell Ring for Infant Male Circumcision? Survival and Analysis of Predictors of Mortality in Patients Undergoing Hemodialysis in a Rural Hospital in Puducherry, India: A Retrospective Cohort Study Parameters of Chronic Kidney Disease to Identify Outpatients at Increased Risk for COVID-19 Mortality: A Cohort Study of UK Biobank Participants Accuracy of Bioimpedance Modalities for Fluid Assessment in Hemodialysis Patients: A Randomized Observational Study Treatment of Acute Antibody-Mediated Rejection in Children Post-Kidney Transplantation: A Single Center’s Experience
×
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