Effectiveness and safety of using a novel endothelial damage inhibitor in arteriovenous fistula formation

Year 2020, Volume: 4 Issue: 9, 716 - 719, 01.09.2020

Emced Khalil , Çağrı Akalın

https://doi.org/10.28982/josam.788906

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Aim: Patients with end-stage renal disease need accurate and effective vascular access for hemodialysis. Although renal transplantation is the golden standard treatment that provides a life without hemodialysis, an arteriovenous (AV) fistula is the most frequent method for sustaining long-term hemodialysis because of insufficient renal donors. In the current study, we aimed to compare patency rates of AV fistulae created with or without the endothelial protection solution.
Methods: This single-center case-control study was conducted between August 2018 and August 2019. Patients with end-stage renal disease requiring AV fistula access for hemodialysis (n= 49) were included in the study and divided into two groups. During the creation of an AV fistulae, endothelial protection solution was used in 27 patients, who constituted Group A, and not used in 22 patients, who were included in Group B (the control group). All fistulae anastomoses were performed by the same surgical team. The demographical data, maturation time, mean flow volume, complications, basal metabolism index (BMI), and patency rates at the 3rd and 6th months were compared.
Results: There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding demographical findings (p>0.05). The patency rates were higher in group A at both the 3rd and 6th months (96% and 93%) when compared with group B (64% and 27%) (P<0.05).
Conclusion: AV fistulae created with endothelial protection solution has higher patency rates compared to conventionally created AV fistulae.

Keywords

End stage renal disease, Arteriovenous fistula, Endothelial protection solution, Patency rate

Supporting Institution

yok

Project Number

..

Thanks

t

Arteriovenöz fistül oluşturulmasında yeni endotelyal hasar inhibitörü kullanılmasının etki ve güvenirliği

Abstract

Amaç: Son dönem böbrek hastalığı olan hastalar, hemodiyaliz için doğru ve etkili damar erişimine ihtiyaç duymaktadır. Böbrek nakli, hemodiyaliz gereksinimi olmadan yaşamın sürdürülmesini sağlayan kesin tedavi yöntemi olsa da, yetersiz böbrek donörü nedeniyle uzun süreli hemodiyalizin sürdürülmesinde en sık kullanılan yöntem arteriyovenöz (AV) fistüldür. Bu çalışmada, endotel koruma solüsyonu ile veya solüsyonsuz oluşturulan AV fistülün açıklık oranlarını karşılaştırmayı amaçladık.
Yöntemler: Bu tek merkezli vaka control çalışması Ağustos 2018 ile Ağustos 2019 arasında gerçekleştirilmiştir. Hemodiyaliz için son dönem böbrek hastalığı olan hastalar (toplam 49 hasta) çalışmaya dahil edilmiştir. Hastalar grup A (endotel koruma solüsyonu ile oluşturulan AV fistüller çalışma grubu olarak, n=27) ve grup B (endotel koruma solüsyonu olmadan oluşturulan AV fistüller control grubu olarak, n=22) olarak iki gruba ayrıldı. Tüm fistül anastomozları aynı cerrahi ekip tarafından yapıldı. 3. ve 6. aydaki demografik veriler, olgunlaşma süresi, ortalama akış hacmi, komplikasyonlar, bazal metabolizma indeksi (VKİ) ve açıklık oranları karşılaştırıldı.
Bulgular: Demografik bulgular açısından iki grup arasında fark yoktu (P>0,05). Grup A'da 3. ve 6. ayda (%96 ve %93) B grubuna (%64 ve %27) göre daha yüksek açıklık oranları saptandı (P<0,05).
Sonuç: Endotelyal koruma solüsyonu ile oluşturulan AV fistül, geleneksel AV fistül oluşturma ile karşılaştırıldığında daha yüksek açıklık oranlarına sahip gibi görünmektedir.

Keywords

Son dönem böbrek hastalığı, Arteryo-venöz fistüller, Endotelyal koruma solüsyonu, Açıklık oranı

Project Number

..

References

• 1. III. NKF-K/DOQI Clinical Practice Guidelines for Vascular Access: update 2000. Am J Kidney Dis. 2001; 37(Suppl 1):S137–81.
• 2. Allon M. Current management of vascular access. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2007;2:786–800. https://doi. org/10.2215/CJN.00860207 PMID: 17699495
• 3. I. NKF-K/DOQI Clinical Practice Guidelines for Hemodialysis Adequacy: Update 2000. Am J Kidney Dis 2001; 37(Suppl. 1):S137eS181
• 4. RiellaMC, Roy-Chaudhury P. Vascular access in haemodialysis: strengthening the Achilles’ heel. Nat Rev Nephrol. 2013;9(6):348-57.
• 5. Viecelli AK, Mori TA, Roy-Chaudhury P, Polkinghorne KR, Hawley CM, Johnson DW, et al. The pathogenesis of hemodialysis vascular access failure and systemic therapies for its prevention: Optimism unfulfilled. Semin Dial. 2018 May;31(3):244-57.
• 6. Simon E, Long B, Johnston K, Summers S.A Case of Brachiocephalic Fistula Steal and the Emergency Physician's Approach to Hemodialysis Arteriovenous Fistula Complications. J Emerg Med. 2017;53(1):66-72.
• 7. Ben Ali W, Voisine P, Olsen PS, Jeanmart H, Noiseux N, Goeken T, et al. DuraGraft vascular conduit preservation solution in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting: rationale and design of a within-patient randomisedmulticentre trial. Open Heart. 2018;5(1):e000780. Published 2018 Apr 13. doi: 10.1136/openhrt-2018-000780
• 8. Caliskan, E., Sandner, S., Misfeld, M, Aramendi J, Salzberg SP, Choi YH, et al. A novel endothelial damage inhibitor for the treatment of vascular conduits in coronary artery bypass grafting: protocol and rationale for the European, multicentre, prospective, observational DuraGraft registry. J Cardiothorac Surg. 2019;14(1):174. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13019-019-1010-z
• 9. Fitts MK, Pike DB, Anderson K, Shiu YT. Hemodynamic Shear Stress and Endothelial Dysfunction in Hemodialysis Access. Open Urol Nephrol J. 2014;7(Suppl 1 M5):33-44. doi: 10.2174/1874303X01407010033
• 10. Brahmbhatt A, Remuzzi A, Franzoni M, Misra S. The molecular mechanisms of hemodialysis vascular access failure. Kidney Int. 2016;89(2):303-16. doi: 10.1016/j.kint.2015.12.019
• 11. Siddiqui MA, Ashraff S, Santos D, Carline T. An overview of AVF maturation and endothelial dysfunction in an advanced renal failure. Renal Replacement Therapy. 2017;3:42.
• 12. de Vries MR, Simons KH, Jukema JW, Braun J, Quax PH. Vein graft failure: from pathophysiology to clinical outcomes. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2016;13(8):451–70.
• 13. Cavallari N, Abebe W, Mingoli A, Sapienza P, Hunter WJ3rd, Agrawal DK, et al. Short-term preservation of autologous vein grafts: effectiveness of University of Wisconsin solution, Surgery. 1997;121:64-71.
• 14. Shuhaiber JH, Evans AN, Massad MG, Geha AS. Mechanisms and future directions for prevention of vein graft failure in coronary bypass surgery, European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. 2002;22(3):387–96.
• 15. Haime M, McLean RR, Kurgansky KE, Emmert MY, Kosik N, Nelson C, et al. Relationship between intra-operative vein graft treatment with DuraGraft(R) or saline and clinical outcomes after coronary artery bypass grafting. Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther. 2018;16(12):963–70.
• 16. Mochizuki S, Vink H, Hiramatsu O, Kajita T, Shigeto F, Spaan JA, et al. Role of hyaluronic acid glycosaminoglycans in shear-induced endothelium-derived nitric oxide release. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2003;285(2):H722-6.
• 17. Lennon FE and Singleton PA. Hyaluronan regulation of vascular integrity. Am J Cardiovasc Dis 2011;1(3):200-13.
• 18. Bahcivan M, Yucel S, Kefeli M, Gol MK, Can B, Keceligil HT. Inhibition of vein graft intimal hyperplasia by periadventitial application of hyaluronic acid-carboxymethyl cellulose: an experimental study. Scand Cardiovasc J. 2008;42(2):161-5.