首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Annals of Surgery >A prospective evaluation of plasma-TFE and expanded PTFE grafts for routine and early use as vascular access during hemodialysis.
【2h】

A prospective evaluation of plasma-TFE and expanded PTFE grafts for routine and early use as vascular access during hemodialysis.

机译:对血浆TFE和膨体PTFE移植物在血液透析期间常规和早期用作血管通路的前瞻性评估。

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

The use of prosthetic grafts as vascular access for chronic hemodialysis is frequently necessary in patients with end-stage renal disease. Most commonly, expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (e-PTFE) has been employed because of ease of handling, tissue inertness, and acceptable long-term patency. Delay in use to allow for tissue ingrowth, however, has often required placement of temporary access devices. The authors have undertaken evaluation of a new material, plasma polymerized woven dacron Plasma-TFE, in a prospective randomized trial (Plasma-TFE VA) to compare clinical behavior against e-PTFE grafts, and we have used the Plasma-TFE grafts in an additional group of patients (Plasma-TFE AVA) as early access (within 1 week of implantation). Twenty-one Plasma-TFE grafts were implanted in 19 patients and 19 e-PTFE grafts were implanted in 17 patients in a prospective randomized fashion. Additionally, 31 Plasma-TFE grafts were implanted in 31 nonrandomized patients for early access. Primary patency rates in Plasma-TFE VA and e-PTFE grafts were equivalent at 12 months (0.471 and 0.556). When Plasma-TFE AVA primary patency was included (0.621), comparisons were not statistically significant (p = 0.50). Similarly, secondary patency rates among the three groups did not differ (cumulative proportion patent at 12 months: Plasma-TFE VA 0.403, e-PTFE 0.658, Plasma-TFE AVA 0.510). In considering after-revision patency after graft thrombosis, however, the Plasma-TFE grafts (both VA and AVA) performed significantly more poorly (p = 0.027) than e-PTFE grafts. Incidence of graft infection, wound infection, arm edema, hematoma from use, and occurrence of distal limb ischemia between Plasma-TFE (VA and AVA) and e-PTFE did not differ statistically. The authors conclude that Plasma-TFE compares favorably to e-PTFE with respect to primary and secondary patency and nonthrombotic complications, even with early use. Plasma-TFE does not perform as well as e-PTFE, however, after graft thrombosis.
机译:对于患有终末期肾脏疾病的患者,经常需要使用假体作为慢性血液透析的血管通路。最常见的是,由于易于处理,组织惰性和可接受的长期开放性,已使用了膨体聚四氟乙烯(e-PTFE)。然而,为了使组织向内生长而延迟使用常常需要放置临时进入装置。作者在一项前瞻性随机试验(Plasma-TFE VA)中评估了一种新材料,等离子聚合编织涤纶Tsma-TFE,以比较其与e-PTFE移植物的临床行为,并且我们在一个另一组患者(Plasma-TFE AVA)作为早期治疗(植入后1周内)。以前瞻性随机方式将21例Plasma-TFE移植物植入19例患者中,将19例e-PTFE移植物植入17例患者中。此外,在31例非随机患者中植入了31例Plasma-TFE移植物,以便尽早进入。 Plasma-TFE VA和e-PTFE移植物的初次通畅率在12个月时相同(0.471和0.556)。当包括血浆-TFE AVA主通畅性(0.621)时,比较无统计学意义(p = 0.50)。同样,三组之间的通畅率没有差异(12个月的累计专利比例:Plasma-TFE VA 0.403,e-PTFE 0.658,Plasma-TFE AVA 0.510)。然而,考虑到移植物血栓形成后的翻修后通畅性,血浆-TFE移植物(VA和AVA两者)的性能明显较e-PTFE移植物差(p = 0.027)。血浆TFE(VA和AVA)与e-PTFE之间的移植物感染,伤口感染,手臂水肿,使用引起的血肿以及远端肢体缺血的发生率无统计学差异。作者得出的结论是,即使在早期使用时,Plasma-TFE在原发和继发通畅性和非血栓形成并发症方面也优于e-PTFE。但是,移植物血栓形成后,血浆TFE的性能不如e-PTFE。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号