Abstract
Purpose
To compare the outcomes of arteriovenous grafts (AVG) managed by interventional nephrologists (IN) to those managed by vascular surgeons (VS).
Methods
Between January 2004 and February 2005, 106 forearm loop AVG were placed. Ten AVG did not meet inclusion criteria and thus were excluded from study. Forty-seven AVG were managed by IN using percutaneous interventional techniques. Vascular surgeons, using surgical techniques, cared for 49 AVG. High-risk AVG in the IN group were surveyed with fistulagrams, whereas AVG in the VS group were not. Outcomes of the IN and VS groups were retrospectively compared.
Results
The secondary patency rates at 6 and 18 months were 84% and 69% in the IN group and 79% and 68% in the VS group, respectively (P=.38). Twenty-five (53%) AVG in the IN required at least one surgical procedure to achieve a patency equivalent to that of the VS group. The mean number of AVG interventions to final failure was 4.8 in the IN group and 3.0 in the VS group (P=.03). Infection requiring AVG removal occurred in six patients in the IN group and one patient in the VS group (P=.07).
Conclusions
Surveillance fistulagrams and percutaneous intervention for malfunctioning AVG by IN do not provide superior patency and may require more interventions over the “life” of the graft when compared to no surveillance and surgical intervention by VS. In order to achieve optimal vascular access outcomes, a collaborative relationship between nephrologist and surgeon is essential so as to ensure that the most appropriate intervention is selected and futile interventions are avoided.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.