Analyses of hemodialysis arteriovenous fistula geometric configuration and its associations with maturation and reintervention.
Adult
Aged
Arteriovenous Shunt, Surgical
/ adverse effects
Female
Graft Occlusion, Vascular
/ diagnostic imaging
Humans
Kidney Failure, Chronic
/ diagnosis
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Male
Middle Aged
Prospective Studies
Renal Dialysis
Retreatment
Risk Assessment
Risk Factors
Time Factors
Treatment Outcome
United States
Upper Extremity
/ blood supply
Vascular Patency
Anastomosis angle
Fistula maturation
Fistula stenosis
Hemodialysis arteriovenous fistula
Nonplanarity angle
Journal
Journal of vascular surgery
ISSN: 1097-6809
Titre abrégé: J Vasc Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8407742
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 2021
05 2021
Historique:
received:
19
05
2020
accepted:
22
09
2020
pubmed:
23
10
2020
medline:
12
10
2021
entrez:
22
10
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
An arteriovenous fistula (AVF) is the preferred vascular access for chronic hemodialysis; however, the rates of AVF maturation failure and reintervention remain high. We investigated the AVF geometric parameters and their associations with AVF physiologic maturation and reintervention in a prospective multicenter study. From 2011 to 2016, patients undergoing vein end-to-artery side upper extremity AVF creation surgery were recruited. Contrast-free dark blood and phase-contrast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans were performed using 3.0T scanners to obtain the AVF lumen geometry and flow rates, respectively, at postoperative day 1, week 6, and month 6. The arteriovenous anastomosis angle, nonplanarity, and tortuosity of the fistula were calculated according to the lumen centerlines. AVFs were considered physiologically matured if, using the week 6 MRI data, the flow rate was ≥500 mL/min and the minimum vein lumen diameter was ≥5 mm. The associations of these geometric parameters with AVF maturation and reintervention due to perianastomotic and mid-vein stenosis within 1 year were assessed. A total of 111 patients had a usable day 1 MRI scan, with most having upper arm AVFs (n = 73). Compared with the forearm AVFs, upper arm AVFs had greater anastomosis angles (P < .001), larger deviations from a plane (nonplanarity; P = .002), and more prominent tortuosity (P = .038) at day 1. These parameters significantly increased between day 1 and week 6 in upper arm AVFs. In contrast, significant changes in these parameters in forearm AVFs were not observed. The rate of maturation was 54% and 86% for forearm and upper arm AVFs, respectively. None of the geometric parameters at day 1 were associated with AVF maturation in either location. The rate of reintervention was 24% and 30% for forearm and upper arm AVFs, respectively, with a larger nonplanarity angle at day 1 associated with less reintervention (30° ± 15° vs 21° ± 10°; P = .034) in upper arm AVFs only. This relationship was unchanged after adjusting for age, sex, race, dialysis status, or diabetes. In our study, upper arm fistulas had a larger anastomosis angle, were more nonplanar, and had more tortuous veins than forearm fistulas. For upper arm fistulas, a larger nonplanarity angle is associated with a lower rate of reintervention within 1 year. Once confirmed, vascular surgeons could consider increasing the nonplanarity angle by incorporating a tension-free gentle curvature in the proximal segment of the mobilized vein to reduce reinterventions when creating an upper arm fistula.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33091518
pii: S0741-5214(20)32205-9
doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2020.09.033
pmc: PMC8055729
mid: NIHMS1639278
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1778-1786.e1Subventions
Organisme : NIDDK NIH HHS
ID : R01 DK088777
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIDDK NIH HHS
ID : U01 DK082189
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIDDK NIH HHS
ID : U01 DK082218
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIDDK NIH HHS
ID : U01 DK082222
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 Society for Vascular Surgery. All rights reserved.
Références
J Vasc Surg. 2015 Dec;62(6):1583-9
pubmed: 26365658
Radiology. 2016 May;279(2):620-9
pubmed: 26694050
J Am Soc Nephrol. 2018 Nov;29(11):2735-2744
pubmed: 30309898
J Vasc Access. 2016 Nov 2;17(6):512-520
pubmed: 27791257
J Vasc Surg. 2018 Dec;68(6S):152S-163S
pubmed: 30064838
J R Soc Interface. 2008 Sep 6;5(26):1067-75
pubmed: 18252664
Am J Kidney Dis. 2020 Apr;75(4 Suppl 2):S1-S164
pubmed: 32778223
Cardiovasc Eng Technol. 2017 Sep;8(3):280-294
pubmed: 28527110
J Vasc Surg. 2017 Apr;65(4):1089-1103.e1
pubmed: 28222990
Ann Biomed Eng. 2015 Jan;43(1):3-15
pubmed: 25169424
Int J Numer Method Biomed Eng. 2019 Dec;35(12):e3259
pubmed: 31483945
J Vasc Surg. 2018 Dec;68(6):1848-1857.e2
pubmed: 29779960
Stroke. 2005 Nov;36(11):2450-6
pubmed: 16224089
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2020 Feb;59(2):277-287
pubmed: 31911136
Br J Surg. 1999 Feb;86(2):211-6
pubmed: 10100789
J Biomech. 2013 Jan 4;46(1):165-9
pubmed: 23122945
Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2016 Jun;9(6):
pubmed: 27208046
Am J Kidney Dis. 2018 Jun;71(6):793-801
pubmed: 29429750
J Vasc Surg. 2020 May;71(5):1620-1628.e3
pubmed: 31611109
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2005 Aug;30(2):209-14
pubmed: 15890544
J Biomech Eng. 2019 Apr 10;:
pubmed: 30968934
J Am Soc Nephrol. 2013 Feb;24(3):465-73
pubmed: 23431075
Nephrology (Carlton). 2019 Feb;24(2):245-251
pubmed: 29314372
Kidney Int. 2012 Apr;81(8):745-50
pubmed: 22358147
J Vasc Access. 2010 Jan-Mar;11(1):52-8
pubmed: 20119922
Kidney Int. 2005 Jun;67(6):2462-9
pubmed: 15882293
Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2009 Jul;297(1):H163-70
pubmed: 19429823
Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2013 Apr;28(4):997-1005
pubmed: 22785110