Surgical reconstruction of a thrombosed permanent vascular access for hemodialysis formed by a vascular access graft
https://doi.org/10.24884/0042-4625-2025-184-2-52-58
Abstract
Introduction. The problem of maintaining the patency of the permanent vascular access (PVA) for renal replacement therapy (RRT) is extremely relevant due to the high incidence of its thrombosis and the need for repeated surgical interventions to reconstruct or form a new access.
The objective was to evaluate the efficacy of different approaches to surgical reconstructions of the PVA formed by a vascular access graft in its thrombosis.
Methods and materials. We performed a retrospective analysis of medical records of 46 patients operated on from 2018 to 2022 and who were diagnosed with PVA thrombosis. As for the revealed hemodynamically significant stenosis of the prosthetic venous anastomosis, a successful reconstruction of the PVA was performed.
Results. The median time for primary graft patency was 21±13.7 months, and secondary one was 19±15, 6 months. The median time for secondary patency after thrombectomy was 9±7.5 months, thrombectomy combined with plasty of the anastomosis area was 10.3±9.1 months, thrombectomy with reprosthetics was 14±12.9 months, thrombectomy with autovenous replantation was 18±9.0 months. The median time for the cumulative graft patency was 41±27.3 months.
Conclusion. Reconstructive surgery for PVA thrombosis allows not only to restore the patency of the latter, but also significantly prolong its function.
About the Authors
I. S. Cherniakov
Leningrad Regional Clinical Hospital
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Cherniakov Ilia S., Cardiovascular Surgeon, Department of Vascular Surgery (including Renal Transplantation)
45, build. 1, lit. A, Lunacharsky ave., Saint Petersburg, 194291
A. Ya. Bedrov
Pavlov University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Bedrov Aleksandr Ya., Dr. of Sci. (Med), Professor of the Department of Hospital Surgery with Clinic, Head of the Department of Vascular Surgery
6-8, L’va Tolstogo str., Saint Petersburg, 197022
M. Sh. Vakhitov
Pavlov University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Vakhitov Mavlet Sh., Dr. of Sci. (Med), Professor of the Department of General Surgery
6-8, L’va Tolstogo str., Saint Petersburg, 197022
P. А. Vladimirov
Leningrad Regional Clinical Hospital
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Vladimirov Pavel A., Cardiovascular Surgeon, Leningrad Regional Clinical Hospital, Head of the Department of Vascular Surgery (including Renal Transplantation)
45, build. 1, lit. A, Lunacharsky ave., Saint Petersburg, 194291
References
1. Arhuidese I. J., Orandi B. J., Nejim B., Malas M. Utilization, patency, and complications associated with vascular access for hemodialysis in the United States. Vasc. Surg. 2018;68:1166–1174.
2. Pisoni R. L., Zepel L., Fluck R. et al. International differences in the location and use of arteriovenous accesses created for hemodialysis: Results from the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS). Am. J. Kidney. Dis. 2018;71:469–478.
3. Lok C. E., Huber T. S., Lee T. et al. KDOQI Vascular Access Guideline Work GrouP. KDOQI clinical practice guideline for vascular access: 2019 update. Am. J. Kidney. Dis. 2020;75(4):1–164.
4. Viecelli A. K., Mori T. A., Roy-Chaudhury P. et al. The pathogenesis of hemodialysis vascular access failure and systemic therapies for its prevention: Optimism unfulfilled. Semin Dial. 2018;31(3):244–257.
5. Go C., Kulkarni R., Wagner J. K. et al. Comparable Patency of Open and Hybrid Treatment of Venous Anastomotic Lesions in Thrombosed Haemodialysis Grafts. Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 2020;60(6): 897–903.
6. Expert Panels on Interventional Radiology and Vascular Imaging, Higgins M. C. S. S., Diamond M. et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Dialysis Fistula Malfunction. J. Am. Coll. Radiol. 2023;20(11):382–412.
7. Moisyuk Ya. G., Belyaev A. Yu., Inozemtsev A. S. et al. Permanent vascular access for hemodialysis: modern trends. Nephrology and dialysis. 2002;4(1):14–24. (In Russ.).
8. Driessen W., van der Meijden W., Wanten G. et al. Long-term patency rate of the translocated autologous saphenous vein versus prosthetic material in vascular access surgery for haemodialysis and parenteral nutrition. J. Vasc. Access. 2023;24(5):972–979.
9. Charlton-Ouw K. M., Nosrati N., Miller CC 3rd et al. Outcomes of arteriovenous fistulae compared with heparin-bonded and conventional grafts for hemodialysis access. J. Vasc. Access. 2012;13(2):163–167.
10. Kim D. S., Kim S. W., Kim J. C. et al. Clinical analysis of hemodialysis vascular access: comparision of autogenous arteriovenous fistula & arteriovenous prosthetic graft. Korean. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2011;44(1):25–31.
11. Drouven J. W., de Bruin C., van Roon A. M. et al. Outcomes of basilic vein transposition versus polytetrafluoroethylene forearm loop graft as tertiary vascular access. Vasc. Surg. 2019;69(4):1180–1186.
12. Sala A. V., Plaza M. A., Zaragozá G. J. Comparison between autogenous brachial-basilic upper arm transposition fistulas and prosthetic brachial-axillary vascular accesses for hemodialysis. J. Cardiovasc. Surg (Torino). 2011;52(5):725–30.
13. Han S., Song D., Yun S. Long Term Outcomes of Arteriovenous Grafts for Hemodialysis in Lower Extremities. Vasc. Specialist. Int. 2016;32(4):180–185.
14. Ong S., Barker-Finkel J., Allon M. et al. Long-term outcomes of arteriovenous thigh grafts in hemodialysis patients: a comparison with tunneled dialysis catheters. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 2013;8(5):804–9.
15. Farber A., Tan T. W., Hu B. et al. The effect of location and configuration on forearm and upper arm hemodialysis arteriovenous grafts. J. Vasc. Surg. 2015;62(5):1258–64.
16. Fadia R., Berman S. S., Chong C. C. et al. Upper Arm Arteriovenous Grafts are Superior over Forearm Arteriovenous Grafts in Upper Extremity Dialysis Access. Ann. Vasc. Surg. 2021;70:131–136.
17. Takahashi E. A., Takahashi E. A., Kilari S., Misra S. Novel Clinical Therapies and Technologies in Dialysis Vascular Access. Kidney360. 2021;2(8):1373–1379.
18. Schmidli J., Widmer M. K., Basile C. et al. Vascular Access: 2018 Clinical Practice Guidelines of the European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS). European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery. 2018;55(6):757–818.
19. Janeckova J., Bachleda P., Utikal P. et al. Surgical revision vs. stent-graft to treat venous anastomosis stenosis following surgical thrombectomy of hemodialysis grafts. Int. Angiol. 2018;37(4):315–321.
20. Liu Y. H., Hung Y. N., Hsieh H. C., Ko P. J. Surgical thrombectomy for thrombosed dialysis grafts: comparison of adjunctive treatments. World. J. Surg. 2008;32(2):241–5.
21. Lee T. Fistula First Initiative: Historical Impact on Vascular Access Practice Patterns and Influence on Future Vascular Access Care. Cardiovasc. Eng. Technol. 2017;8(3):244–254.
22. Han S., Song D, Yun S. Long Term Outcomes of Arteriovenous Grafts for Hemodialysis in Lower Extremities. Vasc. Specialist. Int. 2016; 32(4):180–185.
Supplementary files
Review
For citations:
Cherniakov I.S., Bedrov A.Ya., Vakhitov M.Sh., Vladimirov P.А. Surgical reconstruction of a thrombosed permanent vascular access for hemodialysis formed by a vascular access graft. Grekov's Bulletin of Surgery. 2025;184(2):52-58. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24884/0042-4625-2025-184-2-52-58
Views:
95
Email this article 