Background
The most preferred method of vascular access is the autogenous arteriovenous fistula (AVF). When ready for dialysis, autogenous AVF outperforms arteriovenous grafts (AVG) in terms of patency and survival. An alternate method of vascular access for such individuals is the transposed AVF or AVG.
Aim
The goal of this trial is to evaluate and contrast the results of those who were treated with a brachiobasilic (BB) AVF to those who were treated with a polytetrafluoroethylene brachial to basilic forearm loop graft.
Primary endpoints
Assisted primary patency, primary patency also secondary patency. Secondary endpoints: postoperative complications (wound infection, bleeding, steal syndrome, and procedure-related mortality), functional maturity.
Patients and methods
This is a prospective cohort observational trial performed at the Vascular Surgery Department, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University. Data about patients who had forearm loop grafts or BB AVFs during the period from January 2021 to January 2022 were collected according to the study inclusion criteria. There was a total of 50 individuals included (25 patients in each group). The first group included cases who had BB AVF with basilic vein transposition (BB tAVF) whereas the second group included patients who had brachial-basilic forearm loop graft (BB AVG).
Results
Regarding age and sex distribution or risks of cardiovascular events, there was not a statistically significant distinction among the two study groups. The fistula group required statistically significant longer time to achieve functional maturity mean±SD (BB tAVF=9.64±2.29 vs .BB AVG=6.6±2 assisted and secondary patencies at 3, 6, 12, and 18 months). No statistically significant variation existed among groups regarding postoperative bleeding, infection, and procedure-related mortality.
Conclusion
Both BB AVF and polytetrafluoroethylene brachial to basilic forearm loop graft can be considered as viable options for vascular access in this patient population. The choice of procedure may depend on individual patient factors, possible risks of prolonged central venous catheter (CVC) use, as well as the risks of infection and thrombosis, which should be carefully evaluated.