Abstract
Manufacturers of polytetraflouroethylene (PTFE) grafts used for chronic hemodialysis access describe specific advantages for their respective grafts, which presumably result in greater graft patency rates, reduced complications and decreased overall costs. There are few data available in the literature to support or contradict these alleged benefits. Therefore, this prospective study was undertaken to evaluate and compare patency rates, complications and costs between two of the leading brands of PTFE that are currently being marketed for use as hemodialysis access grafts. Totals of 190 primary PTFE grafts (100 Gore-tex (W. L. Gore and Associates, Flagstaff, AZ) and 90 Impra (C. R. Bard Inc., Tempe, AZ)) were implanted in 168 consecutive patients with end-stage renal disease. A policy of non-interventions was employed for patent grafts, as no attempt was made to assist primary patency. Grafts that occluded during follow-up underwent secondary revision to maintain patency. There was no difference in primary and secondary patency by life-table analysis between Gore-tex and Impra grafts at 2 years (P > 0.53 and P > 0.13, respectively). There was also no significant difference between Gore-tex and Impra in the number of days before the first thrombectomy or in the number of thrombectomies or revisions per graft (P > 0.50). Likewise, the incidence of complications was similar between the two grafts. The cost of graft implantation and maintenance of patency was not significantly different between Gore-tex and Impra grafts. It is concluded that either graft can be used for hemodialysis access with similar expected outcomes for at least 2 years following implantation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.