Home About us Current issue Back issues Submission Instructions Advertise Contact Login   

Search Article 
  
Advanced search 
 
Saudi Journal of Kidney Diseases and Transplantation
Users online: 1505 Home Bookmark this page Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font size Increase font size 
 

Table of Contents   
BRIEF COMMUNICATION  
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 29  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 381-385
Adoption of transposed basilic vein as access for hemodialysis


Department of Surgery, Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust, Derriford Hospital, Plymouth PL6 8DH, United Kingdom

Click here for correspondence address and email

Date of Web Publication10-Apr-2018
 

   Abstract 

The fistula first initiative has rekindled interest in transposition of basilic vein (TBV) in preference to arteriovenous grafts (AVG). TBV is considered to have advantages over AVG. The aim of this study was to analyze the outcome of TBVs in our center comparing them to a historically matched group of patients who had AVG. Thirty-two patients who underwent TBV as a vascular access procedure in Derriford Hospital between January 2010 and October 2014 were included in the study. The historical control group comprised 31 patients who had AVG inserted in the upper arm between January 1999 and December 2010. Patients who had looped AVG were excluded from the study. The primary failure rates were 22% (7/32) and 16% (5/31) for TBV and AVG, respectively (P = 0.7500). AVGs were associated with a higher incidence of infection and steal syndrome, but the differences were not statistically significant (P = 0.286 and P = 0.286, respectively). Twenty-two interventions were undertaken in the TBV group compared to 18 in the AVG group. This study shows that adoption of TBV reduces the need for AVG. To improve TBV access maturation and survival, it is necessary to consider adopting a selection criteria based on findings on vessel mapping.

How to cite this article:
Akoh JA. Adoption of transposed basilic vein as access for hemodialysis. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl 2018;29:381-5

How to cite this URL:
Akoh JA. Adoption of transposed basilic vein as access for hemodialysis. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl [serial online] 2018 [cited 2020 Jun 6];29:381-5. Available from: http://www.sjkdt.org/text.asp?2018/29/2/381/229296

   Introduction Top


The increasing prevalence of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) coupled with insufficient donor kidneys for transplantation means that the vast majority of ESRD patients depend on hemodialysis (HD) as peritoneal dialysis, the alternative, is time-limited. The need for long-term HD is associated with the use of more complex vascular accesses. Native or autogenous arteriovenous fistulas (AVF) have better patency rates andrequire fewer interventions to keep them functioning when compared to synthetic or biological grafts.[1],[2],[3] Arteriovenous grafts (AVG) are usually required in patients whose superficial vein network do not permit the creation of AVF. Though characterized by higher maturation rates, the poor long-term patency and increased infection rates of AVGs make the need for autologous AVF more imperative.

The fistula first initiative has rekindled interest in transposition of basilic vein (TBV) in preference to AVG. The basilic vein in the upper arm, due to its deep location, is rarely damaged by previous venepuncture and is often of a good caliber. However, the necessity of a maturation period for the TBV makes its use less attractive for patients who require immediate access.

The aim of this paper was to analyze the outcome of TBVs in our center comparing them with a historically matched group of patients who had AVGs.


   Methods Top


All patients who underwent TBV (whether in one or two stages) as a vascular access procedure in Derriford Hospital between January 2010 and October 2014 were included in the study. Patients were identified retrospectively from procedure billing codes, and supplementary information was obtained from patients’ notes. The historical control group of patients included 31 patients who had prosthetic AV graft inserted in the upper arm in Derriford Hospital between January 1999 and December 2010. Patients who had looped grafts were excluded from the study. Each TBV or AVG inserted was considered a separate clinical event for the purpose of this study. The operations were performed by four different surgeons who used different grafts and techniques for fashioning AVG or TBV.

Information from case notes, renal computer databases (PROTON Information System, Clinical Computing PLC London; PERPS Renal Database (VitalData), Vitalpulse Limited©, Leyland, Lancs, England) that was recorded prospectively, and surgeon's log books were obtained and entered into a pro forma. Data including age, gender, comorbidities (history of hypertension, diabetes, peripheral vascular disease, cause of end-stage renal disease, use of antiplatelets or anticoagulants, body mass index), history of HD, and number of previous central vein catheters were retrieved. Furthermore, data from preoperative vessel mapping, operative notes, and clinic visits were evaluated to ascertain dates of operation, fistula maturation, first successful dialysis, complications and interventions, access outcome, primary failure, and complications. The results were compared with a historical group of patients, who had prosthetic graft in the upper arm in Derriford Hospital.

Descriptive statistics was calculated for all variables. Chi-squared (×2) and Fisher's exact tests were used to compare categorical variables. Data from patients who had patent fistulas at the last follow-up (March 12, 2015) were censored on that date. Descriptive statistics was used for complication events. All reported P values are two-sided, and a P value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant.


   Results Top


During the study period, 32 patients who underwent TBV (29 single stage, three double stage) were compared to a historical control group of 31 patients who underwent brachio-axillary AVG for HD. The grafts used comprised 28 PTFEs, two Impra, and one Vascutek. [Table 1] shows the two groups were well matched in terms of age and sex distribution, previous vascular access experience, and prevalence of diabetes mellitus. However, there were significant differences in the use of anti-platelets/anticoagulants – higher in the AVG group 2 = 4.5982, P = 0.0320). The mean age of patients in the TBV group was 64.44 years compared to 76.16 years in the AVG group (P = 0.9373).The reasons for creating TBV or AVG were similar with 53% (17/32) and 52% (16/31) due to multiple failed accesses, respectively.
Table 1: Comparison of patients by vascular access type.

Click here to view


The primary failure rates were 22% (7/32) and 16% (5/31) for TBV and AVG, respectively (two-tailed P = 0.7500). AVGs were associated with a higher incidence of infection (3 vs. 1) and steal syndrome (3 vs. 1), but the differences were not statistically significant = 1.137, P = 0.286 and χ2 = 1.137, P = 0.286, respectively). Two (6%) patients who were receiving antiplatelet drugs bled following TBV. As shown in [Table 2], 18.8% (6/31) died with a functioning AVG compared to 9.7% (3/32) of those who had TBV (P = 0.3020 – Fisher's exact test). The AVG group appeared to have more advanced disease as the proportion transplanted was lower than the TBV group although the difference was not statistically significant (χ2 = 1.0585, P = 0.3035).
Table 2: Outcome of TBV compared to AVG.

Click here to view


The interventions to salvage access or deal with complications are shown in [Table 3]. More interventions were undertaken in the TBV group than the AVG group.
Table 3: Interventions to deal with access complications.

Click here to view



   Discussion Top


Compliance with guidelines published by the NKF-KDOQI Clinical Practice Guidelines for Vascular Access – Update 2006[4] and the Society of Vascular Surgery[5] coupled with increased use of TBV has resulted in a significant reduction in the use of AVGs in our center. During the period between 2010 and 2014, only five AVGs were used at the author's institution.

The high primary failure rates for both AVGs (16%) and TBVs (22%) highlight the need for careful assessment and thorough vessel mapping before a decision to perform these types of access procedures.[6],[7],[8] In another series[9] where only 60% of 71 TBV patients underwent preoperative imaging, the primary or early access failure rate was 31%. For vascular imaging to lead to improvement in maturation of access, it must be accompanied by selection of patients with vessels adjudged to be compatible to access development. Chemla and Morsy[10] showed that by selecting only patients with a basilic vein diameter of >3 mm for TBV, they achieved 100% maturation in six weeks. Although their numbers were small, due consideration should be given to adopting their selection principle.

As shown in [Table 3], there were more interventions in the TBV group. Most agree that autogenous vascular accesses require fewer interventions to keep them functioning.[1],[2],[3] Several retrospective studies comparing TBV with different types of prosthetic grafts[11],[12],[13] have shown a higher intervention or reoperation rate in the AVG groups. A meta-analysis of 11 studies (10 retrospective, one randomized controlled trials) reported a higher reintervention rate for prosthetic grafts (0.54 per TBV vs. 1.32 per graft).[14] The higher intervention rate in this series is surprising, and the reasons for this are not entirely clear. Factors contributing to this finding may include a generous selection criteria – the high number requiring angioplasty/ stenting might suggest use of small caliber veins. Furthermore, noting that four patients underwent re-exploration or revision, surgeons’ learning curve might also have been an issue as this was largely a “new” procedure at the author's center.

Despite the assertion of “clear superiority in the TBV group” by Basel et al,[12] the results of TBV are comparable to those of the AVG group. A meta-analysis conducted by Lazarides et al[14] showed no difference in the outcome between the two groups at one year.

The limitations of a study of this nature (historical case-controlled comparison) are well recognized. Not only is comparison affected by missing data but also the retrospective nature makes meaningful comparison difficult. Due to incomplete data, it was not possible to compare the survival of the two types of vascular accesses. Despite this, the report shows that TBVs are a useful addition to the vascular access armamentarium.


   Conclusion Top


This study shows that adoption of TBV reduces the need for AVG. In the absence of proper comparative trials of TBV and AVG, it is important to consider adopting selection criteria similar to Chemla and Morsy[10] that will lead to better access maturation and survival.

Conflict of interest: None declared.

 
   References Top

1.
Mehta S. Statistical summary of clinical results of vascular access procedures for haemo-dialysis. In: Sommer BG, Henry ML, editors. Vascular Access for Hemodialysis-II. 2nd ed. Chicago: IL Gore; 1991. p. 145-57.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Kaufman JL. The decline of the autogenous hemodialysis access site. Semin Dial 1995;8:59- 61.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Pisoni RL, Young EW, Dykstra DM, et al. Vascular access use in Europe and the United States: Results from the DOPPS. Kidney Int 2002;61:305-16.  Back to cited text no. 3
[PUBMED]    
4.
Clinical Practice Guidelines for Vascular Access, Update 2006. Available from: http://www2. kidney.org/professionals/KDOQI/guideline_up HD_PD_VA/. (Last accessed 08/03/2018).  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Sidawy AN, Spergel LM, Besarab A, et al. The society for vascular surgery: Clinical practice guidelines for the surgical placement and maintenance of arteriovenous hemodialysis access. J Vasc Surg 2008;48:2S-25S.  Back to cited text no. 5
[PUBMED]    
6.
Karakayali FY, Sevmis S, Basaran C, et al. Relationship of preoperative venous and arterial imaging findings to outcomes of brachio-basilic transposition fistulae for hemodialysis: A prospective clinical study. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2008;35:208-13.  Back to cited text no. 6
[PUBMED]    
7.
Glass C, Porter J, Singh M, et al. A large-scale study of the upper arm basilic transposition for hemodialysis. Ann Vasc Surg 2010;24:85-91.  Back to cited text no. 7
[PUBMED]    
8.
Vassalotti JA, Falk A, Cohl ED, Uribarri J, Teodorescu V. Obese and non-obese hemodialysis patients have a similar prevalence of functioning arteriovenous fistula using preoperative vein mapping. Clin Nephrol 2002;58: 211-4.  Back to cited text no. 8
[PUBMED]    
9.
Weale AR, Bevis P, Neary WD, Lear PA, Mitchell DC. A comparison between transposed brachiobasilic arteriovenous fistulas and prosthetic brachioaxillary access grafts for vascular access for hemodialysis. J Vasc Surg 2007;46:997-1004.  Back to cited text no. 9
[PUBMED]    
10.
Chemla ES, Morsy MA. Is basilic vein transposition a real alternative to an arterio-venous bypass graft? A prospective study. Semin Dial 2008;21:352-6.  Back to cited text no. 10
[PUBMED]    
11.
Lioupis C, Mistry H, Rix T, et al. Comparison among transposed brachiobasilic, brachio-brachial arteriovenous fistulas and flixene™ vascular graft. J Vasc Access 2011;12:36-44.  Back to cited text no. 11
[PUBMED]    
12.
Basel H, Ekim H, Odabasi D, et al. Basilic vein transposition fistulas versus prosthetic bridge grafts in patients with end-stage renal failure. Ann Vasc Surg 2011;25:634-9.  Back to cited text no. 12
[PUBMED]    
13.
Oliver MJ, McCann RL, Indridason OS, Butterly DW, Schwab SJ. Comparison of transposed brachiobasilic fistulas to upper arm grafts and brachiocephalic fistulas. Kidney Int 2001;60:1532-9.  Back to cited text no. 13
[PUBMED]    
14.
Lazarides MK, Georgiadis GS, Papasideris CP, Trellopoulos G, Tzilalis VD. Transposed brachial-basilic arteriovenous fistulas versus prosthetic upper limb grafts: A meta-analysis. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2008;36:597-601.  Back to cited text no. 14
[PUBMED]    

Top
Correspondence Address:
Dr. Jacob A Akoh
Department of Surgery, Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust, Derriford Hospital, Plymouth PL6 8DH
United Kingdom
Login to access the Email id


DOI: 10.4103/1319-2442.229296

PMID: 29657207

Rights and Permissions



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3]



 

Top
   
 
 
    Similar in PUBMED
    Search Pubmed for
    Search in Google Scholar for
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  
 


 
    Abstract
   Introduction
   Methods
   Results
   Discussion
   Conclusion
    References
    Article Tables
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1103    
    Printed21    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded126    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal