Background: No independent comparisons, with midterm follow-up, of standard arteriovenous grafts (SAVGs) and immediate-access arteriovenous grafts (IAAVGs) exist. The goal of this study was to compare “real-world” performance of SAVGs and IAAVGs. Methods: Consecutive patients who underwent placement of a hemodialysis graft between November 2014 and April 2016 were retrospectively identified from the electronic medical record and Vascular Quality Initiative database at two tertiary centers. Only primary graft placements were included for analysis. Patients were divided into two groups based on the type of graft implanted. Patients’ comorbidities, graft configuration, operative characteristics, and follow-up were collected and analyzed with respect to primary and secondary patency. Additional outcomes included graft-related complications, time to first cannulation, time to tunneled catheter removal, catheter-related complications, and overall survival. Patency was determined from the time of the index procedure; χ2, Kaplan-Meier, and Cox regression analyses were used, with the P value set as significant at < .05. Results: There were 210 grafts identified, 148 SAVGs and 62 IAAVGs. At baseline, the patients’ characteristics were similar between groups, except for a greater prevalence of preoperative central venous occlusions in the IAAVG group (16.3% vs6.8%; P < .04). Of the IAAVG group, 50 were Acuseal (W. L. Gore & Associates, Flagstaff, Ariz) and 12 were Flixene (Atrium Medical Corporation, Hudson, NH). Primary patency was similar at both 1 year (SAVG, 39.4%; IAAVG, 56.7%; P = .4) and 18 months (SAVG, 29.0%; IAAVG, 43.7%; P = .4). Secondary patency was similar at 1 year (SAVG, 50.7%; IAAVG, 52.1%; P = .73) and 18 months (SAVG, 42.3%; IAAVG, 46.3%; P = .73). Overall survival was 48% at 24 months. IAAVG patients required fewer overall additional procedures to maintain patency (mean number of procedures, 0.99 for SAVGs vs 0.61 for IAAVGs; P = .025). There was no difference in occurrence of steal syndrome (SAVG, 6.8%; IAAVG, 8.1%; P = .74) or graft infection (SAVG, 19.0%; IAAVG, 12.0%; P = .276). Seventy-five percent of all grafts were successfully cannulated, with shorter median time to first cannulation in the IAAVG group (6 days; interquartile range [IQR], 1–19 days) compared with the SAVG group (31 days; IQR, 26–47 days; P < .01). Of all pre-existing catheters, 65.75% were removed, with a shorter median time until catheter removal in the IAAVG cohort at 34 days (IQR, 22–50 days) vs 49 days (IQR, 39–67 days) in the SAVG group (P < .01). Catheter-related complications occurred less frequently in the IAAVG group (16.4% vs 2.9%; P < .045). Conclusions: IAAVGs allow earlier cannulation and tunneled catheter removal, thereby significantly decreasing catheter-related complications. Patency and infection rates were similar between SAVGs and IAAVGs, but fewer secondary procedures were performed in IAAVGs.

Real-world experience with novel arteriovenous access grafts is consistent with results from industry-sponsored studies. Early cannulation of immediate-access grafts can be successfully performed in a wide variety of patients. However, prolonged catheter dwell times persist despite increased rates of successful early-graft cannulation. Further study of methods for promoting catheter removal in this patient population is warranted.

CT cholangiography should replace the conventional tomograms if i.v. cholangiography does not yield sufficient depiction of the biliary tree. It should be performed within 60 min post contrast infusion. Complete abolishment of i.v. cholangiography is not warranted. This is due to the fact that conventional cholangiography can sufficiently delineate the biliary tree and thereby reduce x-ray exposure and cost compared to initial performance of CT cholangiography.

Objectives: The chest wall arteriovenous graft (CWAVG) is becoming an alternative option for patients who have exhausted traditional upper extremity access, which used to be lower extremity arteriovenous grafts (LEAVG); however, which should be applied preferentially is unclear.Methods: A retrospective review of CWAVG and LEAVG implants from August 2010 to January 2015 was performed. Patient demographics, medical history, procedural data, and outcomes were evaluated.Results: Within the time periods, 27 CWAVGs were placed in 27 patients and 12 LEAVGs were placed in 12 patients. Demographics were similar between the two groups for many factors. Mean follow-up was 12.1 months for the CWAVG group and 13.5 months for the LEAVG group. The principal difference was the number of interventions to maintain patency, which was 1.82 per year in the CWAVG group and 1.03 per year in the LEAVG group (P < .05). Secondary patency at 6 months was 79% for the CWAVG patients and 82% for the LEAVG patients (P > .05). The CWAVG and LEAVG groups had no difference in infection rate per 1000 days (0.56 vs 0.61; P > .05) or mortality rate at 6 months.Conclusions: In access-challenged patients, LEAVG and CWAVG offer similar rates of secondary patency, infection, and all-cause mortality. The LEAVG required fewer interventions to maintain patency, and the CWAVG maintains the benefit of less infection. In our practice, we prefer the CWAVG to the LEAVG, especially in patients with peripheral arterial disease and in the obese population, because it preserves lower extremity access options.

No abstract