Comparison between autogenous brachial-basilic upper arm transposition fistulas and prosthetic brachial-axillary vascular accesses for hemodialysis.

Comparison between autogenous brachial-basilic upper arm transposition fistulas and prosthetic brachial-axillary vascular accesses for hemodialysis.

Comparison between autogenous brachial-basilic upper arm transposition fistulas and prosthetic brachial-axillary vascular accesses for hemodialysis.

Sala Almonacil V1, Plaza Martínez A,Zaragozá García J,Martínez Parreño C,Al-Raies Bolaños B,Gómez Palonés F,Ortíz Monzón E

Author information

The Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery, 01 Oct 2011, 52(5):725-730

PMID: 21894140 

Share this article Share with emailShare with twitterShare with linkedinShare with facebook

Abstract 

________________________________________

Aim

The aim of this paper was to compare the outcomes of patients undergoing autogenous brachial-basilic upper arm transposition fistulas (BBAVF) with prosthetic brachial-axillary vascular accesses (BAPTFE) at immediate and medium follow-up.

Methods

Retrospective analysis of the aforementioned accesses performed in a single-center from 2003 to 2007. Transposition was used in all BBAVF performed. Conic prostheses were used in the BAPTFE. Primary and secondary patency, patient survival, types of complications and its rates were assessed during follow-up.

Results

Thirty-six 36 BBAVF and 40 BAPTFE were performed. Both groups were well matched for age, gender and comorbidity. BBAVF primary patency was 93.5%, 50.4%, 45.8% and 45.8% compared to 80.6%, 64.3%, 46.2% and 31.6% of the BAPTFE group at 1, 12, 24 and 36 months of follow-up (P=0.719). BBAVF secondary patency was 93.5%, 50.4%, 45.8% and 45.8% compared to 80.6%, 67.7%, 54.2% and 35.1% of the BAPTFE at the same periods (P=0.902). Patient survival was 97.2%, 97.2%, 93.2% and 86.5 for BBAVF in contrast to 97.2%, 94.4%, 84.1% and 79.9% for BAPTFE in the same months (P=0.386). 13.8% of the BBVAF had accessibility problems while only 5% of the BAPTFE presented them (P=0.174). Infection was more frequent in BAPTFE (0% vs 10%), being the only complication near the statistical signification (P=0.071).

Conclusion

BBAVF offer patency and accessibility rates similar to BAPTFE, but lower infectious complications. Thus, we consider them as the preferred hemodialysis access when fistulas using the cephalic vein have failed or are not possible.