A Prospective Comparison of Two Expanded Polytetrafluoroethylene Grafts for Linear Forearm Hemodialysis Access: Does the Manufacturer Matter?

Kaufman, Jeffrey L.; Garb, Jane; Berman, Joel; Rhee, Sang Won; Norris, Marc A.; Friedmann, Paul

doi:10.1016/s1072-7515(01)00885-7

Cited by 23 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Other randomized and observational studies of ePTFE report primary patency ranging from 37% to 56%, and our findings fall within this range. [22][23][24][25] The primary assisted patency at 1 year for BCA of 36% in our study is lower than the 61% reported from the recent randomized study. 21 In contrast, primary assisted patency for ePTFE in this study (45%) was double that reported from the randomized study (21%).…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 80%

Bovine carotid artery biologic graft outperforms expanded polytetrafluoroethylene for hemodialysis access

Arhuidese

Reifsnyder

Islam

et al. 2017

Journal of Vascular Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 80%

Bovine carotid artery biologic graft outperforms expanded polytetrafluoroethylene for hemodialysis access

Arhuidese

Reifsnyder

Islam

et al. 2017

Journal of Vascular Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The DOQI recommends PTFE as the prosthetic material of choice, and it is likely the most widely used conduit material. However, there was no difference in patency between the PTFE and polyurethane urea grafts in the study by Glickman et al (12) Two nice randomized trials demonstrated that the specific brand of PTFE does not make a difference in graft performance (13,14). However, several of the fabric characteristics or modifications to the PTFE grafts may confer a patency advantage, although the available evidence is somewhat contradictory and the study sample sizes relatively small (15–18).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Both Kaufman et al (13) ( N = 131) and Hurlbert et al (14) ( N = 190) reported no difference in either patency or complications between the Gore and Impra brands of PTFE (standard wall). Tordoir et al (15) ( N = 37) reported that the patency rates for stretch PTFE (Gore) were superior to those for standard wall PTFE (annual primary patency 59% versus 29%), while Lenz et al (16) ( N = 108) reported that patency rates for standard wall PTFE (Gore) were superior to those for the thin wall, stretch PTFE (annual primary patency 49% versus 31%) in a significantly larger study.…”

Section: Choice Of Prosthetic Accessmentioning

confidence: 97%

Evidence‐Based Data for the Hemodialysis Access Surgeon

Huber¹,

Buhler

Seeger³

2004

Seminars in Dialysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The National Kidney Foundation Dialysis Outcomes Quality Initiative Clinical Practice Guidelines for Vascular Access (DOQI) have defined the access-related care for patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). However, the standard of care across the country has fallen short of the DOQI targets. One potential explanation for these shortcomings is the lack of compelling evidence in the literature to support the recommendations. This study was designed to compare the DOQI with the best available evidence in the literature for four clinical questions relevant to the hemodialysis access surgeon: the choice of access type (autogenous versus prosthetic), the type of prosthetic graft, management of the "failing" (nonthrombosed) access, and management of the thrombosed access. The electronic literature databases MEDLINE and Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews were searched and relevant randomized controlled trials or meta-analyses were identified for review. No randomized controlled trials comparing autogenous to prosthetic accesses were identified. However, a recent systematic review reported that the patency rates for upper extremity autogenous accesses were superior to their polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) counterparts. The identified randomized trials suggested that the patency rates for the different types of commercially available prosthetic grafts used for access appear comparable. They suggested that standard wall PTFE thickness and prosthetic anastomotic cuffs may be associated with better graft patency, while venous cuffs may be associated with worse patency. Furthermore, the trials suggested percutaneous angioplasty of "failing" prosthetic accesses with greater than 50% stenoses did not appear to improve patency and that routine use of intraluminal stents, as an adjunct to angioplasty, was not beneficial. They did suggest that patency after open surgical revision of "failing" prosthetic accesses was superior to that after percutaneous angioplasty. Lastly, the identified trials suggested that the patency rates after open surgical revision of thrombosed prosthetic accesses was better than after endovascular treatment. Despite the magnitude of hemodialysis-related access problems, the quality of the evidence supporting the clinical decisions relevant to the access surgeon is limited and further clinical trials are justified.

show abstract

“…In 1973, Volder was the first to use the eP-TFE conduit as an arteriovenous graft for hemodialysis 8 . In the course of time ePTFE conduit has became the gold standard for arteriovenous graft 5,[9][10][11][12] . Currently, there are many ePTFE conduits producers and various product modifications are available.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%