Andrew E. Leake

Management and outcomes of dialysis access-associated steal syndrome

OBJECTIVE Dialysis access-associated steal syndrome (DASS) complicates arteriovenous access surgery. We describe a 10-year experience with the surgical management of DASS. METHODS DASS operations were retrospectively reviewed from July 2003 to July 2013 from a single academic institution. Demographics, symptoms, surgical details, and outcomes were collected. RESULTS A total of 201 patients had 218 episodes of DASS. Mean age was 65 years, and 62% were women. DASS was caused by 175 arteriovenous fistulas (80%), 41 upper extremity prosthetic grafts (19%), and two thigh grafts (1%); 87% were brachial artery based. A portion (22%) were referred for DASS from outside practices. All patients had grade 2 (48%) or grade 3 (52%) DASS; 92% (185) were available for follow-up, with a median time to first follow-up of 23 days. Surgical procedures included ligation (73), distal revascularization with interval ligation (DRIL) (59), revision using distal inflow (RUDI) (21), banding (38), proximalization of arterial inflow (12), and distal radial artery ligation (13). There were no differences in preoperative comorbidities between treatment groups. The 30-day complications included continued steal, thrombosis, bleeding, infection, and mortality. Ligation and DRIL were performed most often for grade 3 steal. Ligation and banding were performed most acutely (median time to intervention after access creation of 39 and 24 days vs DRIL and RUDI at 97 and 100 days). Fistula preservation was 0% for ligation, 100% for DRIL, 95% for RUDI, and 89% for banding (P < .01). Improvement of symptoms ranged from 75% (banding) to 98% (DRIL) (P = .005). Women were less likely to have DRIL but more likely to have ligation (P = .001). Complications were highest in the banding (49%) and RUDI (37%) groups. Average mortality was 3.5%, with no significant differences among groups. During the study period, 3287 access procedures were performed, and access volume steadily increased (2003-2008, 1312 access creations; 2008-2013, 1975). Percentage of fistulas (79% vs 86%), incidence of steal (4% vs 6%), and percentage of DRILs (25% vs 28%) were consistent across the two study periods. CONCLUSIONS DRIL and ligation were performed in patients with the most severe symptoms. Compared with ligation, DRIL has equal symptom resolution, no increase in complications, and fistula preservation. Compared with banding, DRIL resulted in superior fistula preservation and fewer complications. DRIL should be considered the preferred procedure for management of DASS in patients with a functioning autologous fistula who can tolerate a major operation.

Arteriovenous grafts are associated with earlier catheter removal and fewer catheter days in the United States Renal Data System population

OBJECTIVE Arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs) are associated with improved long-term outcomes but longer maturation times and higher primary failure rates compared with arteriovenous grafts (AVGs). The Fistula First Breakthrough Initiative has recently emphasized tunneled dialysis catheter (TDC) avoidance. We sought to characterize the relationship of AVFs and AVGs to the use of TDCs as well as secondary procedures. METHODS Using the United States Renal Data System (USRDS) database, we identified incident hemodialysis (HD) patients in 2005 that started HD with a TDC and survived at least 1 year. We then monitored them through 2008. Access creation, TDC removal, TDC placement, and secondary procedures were identified by Current Procedural Terminology codes (American Medical Association, Chicago, Ill). Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify risk factors for the primary end points. RESULTS In 2005, HD was initiated in 56,495 patients, 74% with a TDC. Of these, 6286 had an access procedure ≤3 months and 1 year of follow-up (AVF, 4634; AVG, 1652). Mean age was 67.7 years (AVF, 67.3; AVG, 68.7 years; P < .001), 53.3% were men (AVF, 58.1%; AVG, 40.5%; P < .001), and 33.8% were obese (AVF, 33.6%; AVG, 34.4%; P = not significant). AVG placement was associated with a higher TDC removal at 1 (7.9% vs 3.1%; P < .001), 3 (47.8% vs 17.8%; P < .001), and 6 (60.6% vs 47.2%; P < .001) months. There was no difference at 9 months (AVG, 64.9% vs AVF, 62.3%; P = .06). The median time to TDC removal was lower in the AVG group (70 days vs 155 days; P < .001). Multivariable model found AVFs were associated with decreased odds of TDC removal at 3 (odds ratio, 0.22; P < .001) and 6 months (odds ratio, 0.54; P < .001). AVGs required more secondary procedures than AVFs at all time points up to 1 year and specifically had increased thrombectomy procedures (39.8% vs 11.5%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS In patients starting dialysis with a TDC, AVGs are associated with increased TDC removal and fewer catheter days compared with AVFs at up to 6 months. However, AVGs require more secondary procedures at all time points up to 1 year.

Meta-analysis of open and endovascular repair of popliteal artery aneurysms

Objective: Endovascular popliteal artery aneurysm repair (EPAR) is increasingly used over open surgical repair (OPAR). The purpose of this study was to analyze the available literature on their comparative outcomes. Methods: The PubMed and Embase databases were searched to identify studies comparing OPAR and EPAR. Studies with only one treatment and fewer than five patients were excluded. Demographics and outcomes were collected. Bias risk was assessed using a modified version of the Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale. Results were computed from random‐effects meta‐analyses using the DerSimonian‐Laird algorithm. Results: A total of 14 studies were identified encompassing 4880 popliteal artery aneurysm repairs (OPAR, 3915; EPAR, 1210) during the last decade. OPAR patients were younger (standard mean difference, −0.798 [−0.798 to −1.108]; P < .001) and more likely to have worse tibial runoff (odds ratio [OR], 1.949 (1.15‐3.31); P = .013) than EPAR patients. OPAR had higher odds of wound complications (OR, 5.182 [2.191‐12.256]; P < .001) and lower odds of thrombotic complications (OR, 0.362 [0.155‐0.848]; P < .001). OPAR had longer length of stay (standardized mean difference, 2.158 [1.225‐3.090]; P < .001) and fewer reinterventions (OR, 0.275 [0.166‐0.454]; P < .001). Primary patency was better for OPAR at 1 year and 3 years (relative risk, 0.607 [P = .01] and 0.580 [P = .006], respectively). There was no difference in secondary patency at 1 year and 3 years (0.770 [P = .458] and 0.642 [P = .073], respectively). Conclusions: EPAR has a lower wound complication rate and shorter length of hospital stay compared with OPAR. This comes at the cost of inferior primary patency but not secondary patency out to 3 years. Studies reporting long‐term outcomes are lacking and necessary.

Contemporary outcomes of open and endovascular popliteal artery aneurysm repair

OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to evaluate contemporary practice and outcomes of open repair (OR) or endovascular repair (ER) for popliteal artery aneurysms (PAAs). METHODS Consecutive patients with PAA treated at one institution from January 2006 to March 2014 were reviewed under an Institutional Review Board-approved protocol. Demographics, indications, anatomic characteristics, and outcomes were collected. Standard statistical methods were used. RESULTS A total of 186 PAAs were repaired in 156 patients (110 ORs, 76 ERs) with a mean age of 71 ± 11 years, and most were male (96%). Mean follow-up was 34.9 ± 28.6 months for OR and 28.3 ± 25.8 months for ER (P = .12). Comorbidities were similar between groups. OR was used in more patients with PAA thrombosis (41.8% vs 5.3%; P < .001), acute ischemia (24.5% vs 9.2%; P = .010), and ischemic rest pain (34.5% vs 6.6%; P < .001). Mean tibial (Society for Vascular Surgery) runoff score was 5.0 for OR vs 3.3 for ER (P = .006). OR was associated with increased 30-day complications (22% vs 2.6%; P < .001) and mean postoperative stay (5.8 vs 1.6 days; P < .001). There was no difference in 30-day mortality (OR, 1.8%; ER, 0%; P = .56) or major amputation rate (OR, 3.7%; ER, 1.3%; P = .65). Primary, primary assisted, and secondary patency rates were similar at 3 years (OR, 79.5%, 83.7%, and 85%; ER, 73.2%, 76.3%, and 83%; P = NS). Among 130 patients presenting electively without acute ischemia or thrombosed PAA (63 ORs and 67 ERs), OR had better 3-year primary patency (88.3% vs 69.8%; P = .030) and primary assisted patency (90.2% vs 73.5%; P = .051) but similar secondary patency (90.2% vs 82%; P = .260). ER thrombosis was noted in 8 of 24 patients treated in 2006-2008 (33%; mean time to failure, 49 months) but in only 4 of 51 patients treated in 2009-2013 (7.8%; mean time to failure, 30 months), suggesting a steep learning curve. CONCLUSIONS ER is a safe and durable option for PAA, with lower complication rates and a shorter length of stay. OR has superior primary patency in patients treated electively but no difference in midterm secondary patency and amputations.

Central Venous Stenosis and Occlusion

Central venous stenosis or occlusion is a common phenomenon that plagues patients on hemodialysis. The incidence of symptomatic central venous stenosis is estimated to be up to 20 % of hemodialysis patients. This chapter discusses central venous stenosis and the management of this disease.

Prophylactic distal revascularization with interval ligation and simultaneous arteriovenous fistula creation in high-risk patients

Dialysis access-related ischemic steal syndrome is a well-recognized dialysis access complication. When severe, manifestations include rest pain, hand dysfunction, and tissue loss. Dialysis access attempts on the affected extremity are usually abandoned after a diagnosis of steal syndrome, and patients are often left catheter-dependent. Prophylactic distal revascularization with interval ligation has been described in patients at high-risk for steal syndrome. We present our experience with prophylactic distal revascularization with interval ligation performed simultaneously with arteriovenous fistula creation to prevent the recurrence in five patients and review the current body of literature supporting its use.