DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Clinical Outcomes of Arteriovenous Grafts Using the Superficial Vein versus Venae Comitantes as Venous Outflow

  • Yo Seb Lee (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Konkuk Medical Center, Konkuk University School of Medicine) ;
  • Song Am Lee (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Konkuk Medical Center, Konkuk University School of Medicine) ;
  • Jae Joon Hwang (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Konkuk Medical Center, Konkuk University School of Medicine) ;
  • Jun Seok Kim (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Konkuk Medical Center, Konkuk University School of Medicine) ;
  • Hyun Keun Chee (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Konkuk Medical Center, Konkuk University School of Medicine)
  • Received : 2023.09.01
  • Accepted : 2023.12.12
  • Published : 2024.03.05

Abstract

Background: The superficial veins are commonly used in conventional autogenous arteriovenous fistulas and the placement of prosthetic grafts. When they are unsuitable, however, the use of the deep veins (venae comitantes) is generally considered to be a reasonable alternative. This study conducted a comparative analysis of clinical outcomes for arteriovenous grafts between 2 groups based on the type of venous outflow: superficial veins or venae comitantes. Methods: In total, 151 patients who underwent arteriovenous grafts from November 2005 to March 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into 2 groups: group A (superficial veins, n=89) and group B (venae comitantes, n=62). The primary, secondary patency, and complication rates were analyzed in each group. A propensity score-matched analysis was performed. Results: In total, 55 well-balanced pairs were matched. Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed no significant differences in the primary patency rate between the 2 groups at 1-year, 3-year and 5-year intervals (group A, 54.7%, 35.9%, 25.4% vs. group B, 47.9%, 16.8%, 12.6%; p=0.14), but there was a difference in the secondary patency rate (group A, 98.2%, 95.3%, 86.5% vs. group B, 87.3%, 76.8%, 67.6%; p=0.0095). The rates of complications, simple percutaneous transluminal angioplasty, and stent insertion were comparable between the groups. Conclusion: Although this study demonstrated not particularly favorable secondary patency rates in the venae comitantes group, the venae comitantes may still be a viable option for patients with unsuitable superficial veins because there were no significant differences in the primary patency and complication rates between the 2 groups.

Keywords

References

  1. Jung JY, Yoo KD, Kang E, et al. Korean Society of Nephrology 2021 Clinical Practice Guideline for optimal hemodialysis treatment. Kidney Res Clin Pract 2021;40(Suppl 1):S1-37. https://doi.org/10.23876/j.krcp.21.600 
  2. Lok CE, Huber TS, Lee T, et al. KDOQI Clinical Practice Guideline for vascular access: 2019 update. Am J Kidney Dis 2020;75(4 Suppl 2):S1-164. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.ajkd.2019.12.001 
  3. Song CM, Ahn JB, Kim IS, et al. Clinical analysis of arteriovenous fistula in chronic renal failure patients. Korean J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2006;39:692-8. 
  4. Kim DS, Kim SW, Kim JC, Cho JH, Kong JH, Park CR. Clinical analysis of hemodialysis vascular access: comparision of autogenous arterioveonus fistula & arteriovenous prosthetic graft. Korean J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2011;44:25-31. https://doi.org/10.5090/kjtcs.2011.44.1.25 
  5. Han S, Seo PW, Ryu JW. Surgical outcomes of forearm loop arteriovenous fistula formation using tapered versus non-tapered polytetrafluoroethylene grafts. Korean J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2017;50:30-5. https://doi.org/10.5090/kjtcs.2017.50.1.30 
  6. Lee G, Lim CY, Lee HJ. Arteriovenous fistula formation with prosthetic graft using the vena comitantes as a venous outflow. Korean J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2009;42:41-5. 
  7. Elwakeel HA, Saad EM, Elkiran YM, Awad I. Unusual vascular access for hemodialysis: transposed venae comitante of the brachial artery. Ann Vasc Surg 2007;21:560-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avsg.2007.03.026 
  8. Sha HL, Luk TL, Tee SC, Hardin R, Seak CK. Our experience in using the brachial venae comitantes as a native vascular access for hemodialysis. Hemodial Int 2016;20:293-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/hdi.12370 
  9. Son JW, Ryu JW, Seo PW, Ryu KM, Chang SW. Clinical outcomes of arteriovenous graft in end-stage renal disease patients with an unsuitable cephalic vein for hemodialysis access. Korean J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2020;53:73-8. https://doi.org/10.5090/kjtcs.2020.53.2.73 
  10. Cui J, Steele D, Wenger J, et al. Hemodialysis arteriovenous fistula as first option not necessary in elderly patients. J Vasc Surg 2016;63:1326-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2015.11.036 
  11. Kim KT, Ryu JW, Seo PW, Ryu KM. Clinical results of arteriovenous fistulas constructed using autologous vessels in end-stage renal disease patients on hemodialysis. Korean J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2018;51:122-9. https://doi.org/10.5090/kjtcs.2018.51.2.122 
  12. Marques G, Sadaghianloo N, Fouilhe L, et al. Higher patency of transposed brachio-basilic arteriovenous fistulas compared to brachio-axillary grafts for hemodialysis patients. J Vasc Access 2015;16:486-92. https://doi.org/10.5301/jva.5000433 
  13. Srinivasaiah N, Yalamuri RR, Umez-Eronini NO, Rix D, Talbot D. Venae comitantes fistulae: an option in patients with difficult hemodialysis access. J Vasc Access 2007;8:258-61. https://doi.org/10.1177/112972980700800407