Does ligation of the dorsal branch of the cephalic vein affect the patency of a distal forearm arteriovenous fistula? A randomised study.
Cephalic vein
Patency rate
Radiocephalic arteriovenous fistula
Randomized controlled trial
Journal
BMC nephrology
ISSN: 1471-2369
Titre abrégé: BMC Nephrol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967793
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
29 04 2020
29 04 2020
Historique:
received:
26
09
2019
accepted:
21
04
2020
entrez:
1
5
2020
pubmed:
1
5
2020
medline:
26
8
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Whether ligation of the dorsal branch of the cephalic vein during the surgical establishment of the radiocephalic arteriovenous fistula (RCAVF) favorably or adversely affects the patency rate of the RCAVF remains controversial. We performed a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effect of dorsal branch ligation on the patency rate of RCAVF. A total of 115 patients who underwent surgical establishment were randomized to two groups treated with or without ligation of the dorsal branch of the cephalic vein during the surgical process. The primary patency rates of the RCAVF at 90, 270, and 360 days after the surgery and the secondary patency rates during a follow-up up to 1 year were compared. The patency rate did not differ significantly between the two groups at 3, 9, or 12 months after the procedure (P > 0.05). The combined primary patency rates of the RCAVF in patients from both groups at 3, 9 and 12 months after the procedure were 87.6, 82, and 74.5% respectively, while the combined secondary patency rate was 92.2% at the 1-year follow-up. The Log-rank test indicated that the initial patency rate and secondary patency rate did not differ significantly between the two groups (P = 0.674 and 0.759, respectively). This clinical study indicated that ligation of the dorsal branch of the cephalic vein does not significantly affect the patency of the arteriovenous fistula with a 1-year follow-up. ISRCTN ISRCTN12288675, Registered 25 September 2019 in the ISRCTN registry. retrospectively registered.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Whether ligation of the dorsal branch of the cephalic vein during the surgical establishment of the radiocephalic arteriovenous fistula (RCAVF) favorably or adversely affects the patency rate of the RCAVF remains controversial. We performed a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effect of dorsal branch ligation on the patency rate of RCAVF.
METHODS
A total of 115 patients who underwent surgical establishment were randomized to two groups treated with or without ligation of the dorsal branch of the cephalic vein during the surgical process. The primary patency rates of the RCAVF at 90, 270, and 360 days after the surgery and the secondary patency rates during a follow-up up to 1 year were compared.
RESULTS
The patency rate did not differ significantly between the two groups at 3, 9, or 12 months after the procedure (P > 0.05). The combined primary patency rates of the RCAVF in patients from both groups at 3, 9 and 12 months after the procedure were 87.6, 82, and 74.5% respectively, while the combined secondary patency rate was 92.2% at the 1-year follow-up. The Log-rank test indicated that the initial patency rate and secondary patency rate did not differ significantly between the two groups (P = 0.674 and 0.759, respectively).
CONCLUSION
This clinical study indicated that ligation of the dorsal branch of the cephalic vein does not significantly affect the patency of the arteriovenous fistula with a 1-year follow-up.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
ISRCTN ISRCTN12288675, Registered 25 September 2019 in the ISRCTN registry. retrospectively registered.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32349711
doi: 10.1186/s12882-020-01823-8
pii: 10.1186/s12882-020-01823-8
pmc: PMC7191813
doi:
Banques de données
ISRCTN
['ISRCTN12288675']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
155Subventions
Organisme : Science and Technology Department of Henan Province
ID : 162102310019
Pays : International
Références
Nephrol Dial Transplant. 1999 Jan;14(1):118-20
pubmed: 10052489
Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2001 Dec;16(12):2365-71
pubmed: 11733628
Clin Radiol. 2006 May;61(5):404-9
pubmed: 16679113
J Vasc Surg. 2002 Mar;35(3):603-10
pubmed: 11877717
J Vasc Access. 2016 Jan-Feb;17(1):6-12
pubmed: 26391584
J Vasc Access. 2012 Apr-Jun;13(2):180-6
pubmed: 22020529
N Engl J Med. 1966 Nov 17;275(20):1089-92
pubmed: 5923023
Kidney Int. 2003 Jan;63(1):323-30
pubmed: 12472799
Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2011 Mar;93(2):170
pubmed: 22041153
Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl. 2009 Nov;20(6):1110-4
pubmed: 19861886
J Vasc Access. 2016 May 07;17(3):e46-64
pubmed: 27170537