用于血液透析的肱动脉与肱动脉瘘管疗效的前瞻性比较

Pub Date : 2024-07-01 DOI:10.25259/ijn_367_23
Joel Mathew John, Lam Samuel Prabhu Mithra, Yeddula Gnanendra Reddy, A. Selvaraj, Prabhu Premkumar, V. Samuel
{"title":"用于血液透析的肱动脉与肱动脉瘘管疗效的前瞻性比较","authors":"Joel Mathew John, Lam Samuel Prabhu Mithra, Yeddula Gnanendra Reddy, A. Selvaraj, Prabhu Premkumar, V. Samuel","doi":"10.25259/ijn_367_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n\nBrachiocephalic fistula (BCF) and brachiobasilic fistula (BBF) are autogenous fistulas created in the arm for hemodialysis access. However, despite the differences in anatomy and surgical technique, the existing literature shows no significant statistical difference between the maturation, patency, or complications. We analyzed the outcomes of these two types of arteriovenous fistulas in our subgroup of the Indian population.\n\n\n\nA prospective observational cohort study was performed at a tertiary hospital from August 2019 to August 2021 between patients who underwent BCF and BBF. The time to maturation, 1-year primary patency, and postoperative complications were studied.\n\n\n\nAmong the 236 patients, 137 and 99 underwent BCF and BBF, respectively. 53 (39%) and 37 (37.4%) patients were lost to follow-up at the end of 12 months in each arm, respectively. Each group comprised predominantly of males. There was no significant difference in age, diabetes, coronary artery disease, or peripheral arterial disease between the groups. The time to maturation within 6 weeks, more than 6 weeks, and non-maturation was 51.88% and 58.1% (p = 0.58), 38.67% and 32.55% (p = 0.04), and 9.43% and 9.3% (p = 0.74) in BCF and BBF groups, respectively. The 1-year primary patency, primary-assisted patency, and secondary patency were 69.04% and 53.22% (p <0.001), 78.3% and 59.6%, and 79.5% and 62.9% in BCF and BBF groups, respectively. Apart from venous hypertension (BCF:2(1.5%) vs BBF:7(7.1%), p = 0.026), there were no significant differences in the postoperative complications between the groups.\n\n\n\nBCFs take longer to mature but have greater primary patency than BBF. Both of these fistulas had similar postoperative complications. Larger randomized trials are needed to confirm our findings.\n","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Prospective Comparison of Outcomes of Brachiocephalic Versus Brachiobasilic Fistulas for Hemodialysis\",\"authors\":\"Joel Mathew John, Lam Samuel Prabhu Mithra, Yeddula Gnanendra Reddy, A. Selvaraj, Prabhu Premkumar, V. Samuel\",\"doi\":\"10.25259/ijn_367_23\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n\\nBrachiocephalic fistula (BCF) and brachiobasilic fistula (BBF) are autogenous fistulas created in the arm for hemodialysis access. However, despite the differences in anatomy and surgical technique, the existing literature shows no significant statistical difference between the maturation, patency, or complications. We analyzed the outcomes of these two types of arteriovenous fistulas in our subgroup of the Indian population.\\n\\n\\n\\nA prospective observational cohort study was performed at a tertiary hospital from August 2019 to August 2021 between patients who underwent BCF and BBF. The time to maturation, 1-year primary patency, and postoperative complications were studied.\\n\\n\\n\\nAmong the 236 patients, 137 and 99 underwent BCF and BBF, respectively. 53 (39%) and 37 (37.4%) patients were lost to follow-up at the end of 12 months in each arm, respectively. Each group comprised predominantly of males. There was no significant difference in age, diabetes, coronary artery disease, or peripheral arterial disease between the groups. The time to maturation within 6 weeks, more than 6 weeks, and non-maturation was 51.88% and 58.1% (p = 0.58), 38.67% and 32.55% (p = 0.04), and 9.43% and 9.3% (p = 0.74) in BCF and BBF groups, respectively. The 1-year primary patency, primary-assisted patency, and secondary patency were 69.04% and 53.22% (p <0.001), 78.3% and 59.6%, and 79.5% and 62.9% in BCF and BBF groups, respectively. Apart from venous hypertension (BCF:2(1.5%) vs BBF:7(7.1%), p = 0.026), there were no significant differences in the postoperative complications between the groups.\\n\\n\\n\\nBCFs take longer to mature but have greater primary patency than BBF. Both of these fistulas had similar postoperative complications. Larger randomized trials are needed to confirm our findings.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":0,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.25259/ijn_367_23\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25259/ijn_367_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

肱脑瘘(BCF)和肱鼻瘘(BBF)是在手臂上创建的自体瘘,用于血液透析通路。然而,尽管解剖结构和手术技术不同,现有文献显示这两种瘘管在成熟度、通畅性和并发症方面没有明显的统计学差异。2019年8月至2021年8月,一家三甲医院对接受BCF和BBF手术的患者进行了一项前瞻性观察性队列研究。在 236 名患者中,分别有 137 人和 99 人接受了 BCF 和 BBF。两组分别有 53 名(39%)和 37 名(37.4%)患者在 12 个月后失去随访。两组患者均以男性为主。两组患者在年龄、糖尿病、冠状动脉疾病或外周动脉疾病方面无明显差异。BCF组和BBF组在6周内成熟、6周以上成熟和不成熟的时间分别为51.88%和58.1%(P = 0.58)、38.67%和32.55%(P = 0.04)以及9.43%和9.3%(P = 0.74)。BCF组和BBF组的1年初次通畅率、初次辅助通畅率和二次通畅率分别为69.04%和53.22%(P<0.001)、78.3%和59.6%以及79.5%和62.9%。除了静脉高压(BCF:2(1.5%) vs BBF:7(7.1%),p = 0.026)外,两组患者的术后并发症无明显差异。这两种瘘管的术后并发症相似。我们需要更大规模的随机试验来证实我们的研究结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
A Prospective Comparison of Outcomes of Brachiocephalic Versus Brachiobasilic Fistulas for Hemodialysis
Brachiocephalic fistula (BCF) and brachiobasilic fistula (BBF) are autogenous fistulas created in the arm for hemodialysis access. However, despite the differences in anatomy and surgical technique, the existing literature shows no significant statistical difference between the maturation, patency, or complications. We analyzed the outcomes of these two types of arteriovenous fistulas in our subgroup of the Indian population. A prospective observational cohort study was performed at a tertiary hospital from August 2019 to August 2021 between patients who underwent BCF and BBF. The time to maturation, 1-year primary patency, and postoperative complications were studied. Among the 236 patients, 137 and 99 underwent BCF and BBF, respectively. 53 (39%) and 37 (37.4%) patients were lost to follow-up at the end of 12 months in each arm, respectively. Each group comprised predominantly of males. There was no significant difference in age, diabetes, coronary artery disease, or peripheral arterial disease between the groups. The time to maturation within 6 weeks, more than 6 weeks, and non-maturation was 51.88% and 58.1% (p = 0.58), 38.67% and 32.55% (p = 0.04), and 9.43% and 9.3% (p = 0.74) in BCF and BBF groups, respectively. The 1-year primary patency, primary-assisted patency, and secondary patency were 69.04% and 53.22% (p <0.001), 78.3% and 59.6%, and 79.5% and 62.9% in BCF and BBF groups, respectively. Apart from venous hypertension (BCF:2(1.5%) vs BBF:7(7.1%), p = 0.026), there were no significant differences in the postoperative complications between the groups. BCFs take longer to mature but have greater primary patency than BBF. Both of these fistulas had similar postoperative complications. Larger randomized trials are needed to confirm our findings.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
×
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