Anastomotic strategies to improve hemodialysis access patency - A review

Vascular and Endovascular Surgery

Volumn 39, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 135-142

  Lin, Peter H ^a,b   Bush, Ruth L ^a,b   Nguyen, Liz ^a,b   Guerrero, Marlon A ^a,b   Chen, Changyi ^a,b   Lumsden, Alan B ^a,b  

^a Baylor College of Medicine ^*

^b MICHAEL E DEBAKEY VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

NITINOL; POLITEF;

ARTERIOVENOUS SHUNT; ARTERY INTIMA PROLIFERATION; CLIP; CUFF; DEVICE; HEMODIALYSIS; HEMODYNAMICS; HUMAN; KIDNEY FAILURE; LONG TERM CARE; REVIEW; STENOSIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VASCULAR ACCESS; VASCULAR PATENCY; VEIN ANASTOMOSIS; VEIN CUFF;

ARTERIOVENOUS SHUNT, SURGICAL; BLOOD VESSEL PROSTHESIS; HUMANS; KIDNEY FAILURE, CHRONIC; POLYTETRAFLUOROETHYLENE; RENAL DIALYSIS; SURGICAL INSTRUMENTS; VASCULAR PATENCY;

EID: 16844370156     PISSN: 15385744     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/153857440503900202     Document Type: Review

References (48)

1. 2001 Annual Report: ESRD Clinical Performance Measures Project. Am J Kidney Dis 39:S4-S98, 2002.
2. Lysaght MJ: Maintenance dialysis population dynamics: Current trends and long-term implications. J Am Soc Nephrol 13(suppl 1):S37-S40, 2002.
3. Feldman HI, Held PJ, Hutchinson JT, et al: Hemodialysis vascular access morbidity in the United States. Kidney Int 43:1091-1096, 1993.
4. Gibson KD, Gillen DL, Caps MT, et al: Vascular access survival and incidence of revisions: A comparison of prosthetic grafts, simple autogenous fistulas, and venous transposition fistulas from the United States Renal Data System Dialysis Morbidity and Mortality Study. J Vasc Surg 34:694-700, 2001.
5. Sullivan KL, Besarab A, Bonn J, et al: Hemodynamics of failing dialysis grafts. Radiology 186:867-872, 1993.
6. Roy-Chaudhury P, Munda R, Edwards J, et al: Hemodialysis vascular access dysfunction: From clinical stenosis to specific cell types. J Nephrol 16:277, 2003.
7. Roy-Chaudhury P, Kelly BS, Zhang J, et al: Hemodialysis vascular access dysfunction: From pathophysiology to novel therapies. Blood Purif 21:99-110, 2003.
8. Roy-Chaudhury P, Kelly BS, Narayana A, et al: Hemodialysis vascular access dysfunction: From basic biology to clinical intervention. Adv Ren Replace Ther 9:74-84, 2002.
9. Kelly BS, Heffelfinger SC, Whiting JF, et al: Aggressive venous neointimal hyperplasia in a pig model of arteriovenous graft stenosis. Kidney Int 62:2272-2280, 2002.
10. Hofstra L, Bergmans DC, Leunissen KM, et al: Anastomotic intimal hyperplasia in prosthetic arteriovenous fistulas for hemodialysis is associated with initial high flow velocity and not with mismatch in elastic properties. J Am Soc Nephrol 6:1625-1633, 1995.
11. Swedberg SH, Brown BG, Sigley R, et al: Intimal fibromuscular hyperplasia at the venous anastomosis of PTFE grafts in hemodialysis patients. Clinical, immunocytochemical, light and electron microscopic assessment. Circulation 80:1726-1736, 1989.
12. Zacharias RK, Kirkman TR, Kenagy RD, et al: Growth factor production by polytetrafluoroethylene vascular grafts. J Vasc Surg 7:606-610, 1988.
13. Golden MA, Au YP, Kenagy RD, et al: Growth factor gene expression by intimal cells in healing polytetrafluoroethylene grafts. J Vasc Surg 11:580-585, 1990.
14. Cantelmo NL, Quist WC, Lo Gerfo FW: Quantitative analysis of anastomotic intimal hyperplasia in paired Dacron and PTFE grafts. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino) 30:910-915, 1989.
15. Sterpetti AV, Cucina A, Santoro L, et al: Modulation of arterial smooth muscle cell growth by haemodynamic forces. Eur J Vasc Surg 6:16-20, 1992.
16. Fillinger MF, Reinitz ER, Schwartz RA, et al: Beneficial effects of banding on venous intimal-medial hyperplasia in arteriovenous loop grafts. Am J Surg 158:87-94, 1989.
17. Kohler TR, Kirkman TR, Kraiss LW, et al: Increased blood flow inhibits neointimal hyperplasia in endothelialized vascular grafts. Circ Res 69:1557-1565, 1991.
18. Kraiss LW, Kirkman TR, Kohler TR, et al: Shear stress regulates smooth muscle proliferation and neointimal thickening in porous polytetrafluoroethylene grafts. Arterioscler Thromb 11:1844-1852, 1991.
19. Faulkner SL, Fisher RD, Conkle DM, et al: Effect of blood flow rate on subendothelial proliferation in venous autografts used as arterial substitutes. Circulation 52:1163-1172, 1975.
20. Abbott WM, Megerman J, Hasson JE, et al: Effect of compliance mismatch on vascular graft patency. J Vasc Surg 5:376-382, 1987.
21. Wang LC, Guo GX, Tu R, et al: Graft compliance and anastomotic flow patterns. ASAIO Trans 36:90-94, 1990.
22. Sumpio BE, Banes AJ, Levin LG, et al: Mechanical stress stimulates aortic endothelial cells to proliferate. J Vasc Surg 6:252-256, 1987.
23. Sumpio BE, Banes AJ: Response of porcine aortic smooth muscle cells to cyclic tensional deformation in culture. J Surg Res 44:696-701, 1988.
24. Sumpio BE, Banes AJ, Buckley M, et al: Alterations in aortic endothelial cell morphology and cytoskeletal protein synthesis during cyclic tensional deformation. J Vasc Surg 7:130-138, 1988.
25. Tyrrell MR, Chester JF, Vipond MN, et al: Experimental evidence to support the use of interposition vein collars/patches in distal PTFE anastomoses. Eur J Vasc Surg 4:95-101, 1990.
26. Clark RE, Apostolou S, Kardos JL: Mismatch of mechanical properties as a cause of arterial prostheses thrombosis. Surg Forum 27:208-210, 1976.
27. Miller JH, Foreman RK, Ferguson L, et al: Interposition vein cuff for anastomosis of prosthesis to small artery. Aust NZ J Surg 54:283-285, 1984.
28. Taylor RS, Loh A, McFarland RJ, et al: Improved technique for polytetrafluoroethylene bypass grafting: Long-term results using anastomotic vein patches. Br J Surg 79:348-354, 1992.
29. Gagne PJ, Martinez J, DeMassi R, et al: The effect of a venous anastomosis Tyrell vein collar on the primary patency of arteriovenous grafts in patients undergoing hemodialysis. J Vasc Surg 32:1149-1154, 2000.
30. Lemson MS, Tordoir JH, van Del RJ, et al: Effects of a venous cuff at the venous anastomosis of polytetrafluoroethylene grafts for hemodialysis vascular access. J Vasc urg 32:1155-1163, 2000.
31. Escobar FS, SchwartSA, Aboulijoud M: A preliminary study comparing a new "hooded" s conventional ePTFE graft in hemodialysis patients. In: Vascular Access for Hemodialysis VI, ed. by Henry M. Chicago: Precept Press, 1998, pp 205-212.
32. Fisher RK, Kirkpatrick UJ, How TV, et al: The distaflo graft: A valid alternative to interposition vein? Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 25:235-239, 2003.
33. Lei M, Archie JP, Kleinstreuer C: Computational design of a bypass graft that minimizes wall shear stress gradients in the region of the distal anastomosis. J Vasc Surg 25:637-646, 1997.
34. Sorom AJ, Hughes CB, McCarthy JT, et al: Prospective, randomized evaluation of a cuffed expanded polytetrafluoroethylene graft for hemodialysis vascular access. Surgery 132:135-140, 2002.
35. Lumsden AB, Weaver FA, Hood DB: Prospective multi-center evaluation of VENAFLO ePTFE as compared to Impra ePTFE vascular graft in hemodialysis applications. In: Vascular Access for Hemodialysis, 4th ed., ed. by Henry ML. Chicago: WL Gore and Associates, and Precept Press, 1997, pp 242-249.
36. Baumgartner N, Dobrin PB, Morasch M, et al: Influence of suture technique and suture material selection on the mechanics of end-to-end and end-to-side anastomoses. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 111:1063-1072, 1996.
37. Hasson JE, Megerman J, Abbott WM: Suture technique and para-anastomotic compliance. J Vasc Surg 3:591-598, 1986.
38. Lee BY, Brancato RF, Shaw WW, et al: Effect of suture technique on blood velocity waveforms in the microvascular anastomosis of autogenous vein graft. Microsurgery 4:151-156, 1983.
39. Lin PL, Bush RL, Nelson CJ, et al: A prospective evaluation of interrupted nitinol U-Clips in arteriovenous fistula for hemodialysis. Am J Surg 2003 (in press).
40. Tozzi P, Hayoz D, Ruchat P, et al: Animal model to compare the effects of suture technique on cross-sectional compliance on end-to-side anastomoses. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 19:477-481, 2001.
41. Baguneid MS, Goldner S, Fulford PE, et al: A comparison of para-anastomotic compliance profiles after vascular anastomosis: Nonpenetrating clips versus standard sutures. J Vasc Surg 33:812-820, 2001.
42. Loop FD, Lytle BW, Cosgrove DM, et al: Influence of the internal-mammary-artery graft on 10-year survival and other cardiac events. N Engl J Med 314:1-6, 1986.
43. Loop FD, Cosgrove DM, Kramer JR, et al: Late clinical and arteriographic results in 500 coronary artery reoperations. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 81:675-685, 1981.
44. Hill AC, Maroney TP, Virmani R: Facilitated coronary anastomosis using a nitinol U-Clip device: Bovine model. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 121:859-870, 2001.
45. Caskey MP, Kirshner MS, Alderman EL, et al: Six-month angiographic evaluation of beating-heart coronary arterial graft interrupted anastomoses using the coalescent U-Clip anastomotic device: A prospective clinical study. Heart Surg Forum 5:319-326; discussion 327, 2002.
46. Schild AF, Raines J: Preliminary prospective randomized experience with vascular clips in the creation of arteriovenous fistulae for hemodialysis. Am J Surg 178:33-37, 1999.
47. Cooper BZ, Flores L, Ramirez JA, et al: Analysis of nonpenetrating clips versus sutures for arterial venous graft anastomosis. Ann Vasc Surg 15:7-12, 2001.
48. Schild AF, Pruett CS, Newman MI, et al: The utility of the VCS clip for creation of vascular access for hemodialysis: Long-term results and intraoperative benefits. Cardiovasc Surg 9:526-530, 2001.