Journal of Vascular Surgery
Volume 52, Issue 6 , Pages 1551-1556, December 2010

The middle-arm fistula as a valuable surgical approach in patients with end-stage renal disease

  • Giuseppe Bonforte, MD

      Affiliations

    • Nephrology and Dialysis Unit, S. Anna Hospital, Como, Italy
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorrespondence: Dr Giuseppe Bonforte, Ospedale sant'anna, Nefrologia e dialisi, via Napoleona 60, 22100 Como, Italy
  • ,
  • Emanuela Rossi, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Clinical Medicine and Prevention, University Milano-Bicocca, Monza, Italy
  • ,
  • Sara Auricchio, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Clinical Medicine and Prevention, University Milano-Bicocca, Monza, Italy
  • ,
  • Daniela Pogliani, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Clinical Medicine and Prevention, University Milano-Bicocca, Monza, Italy
  • ,
  • Stefano Mangano, MD

      Affiliations

    • Nephrology and Dialysis Unit, S. Anna Hospital, Como, Italy
  • ,
  • Salvatore Mandolfo, MD

      Affiliations

    • Nephrology and Dialysis Unit, Hospital of Lodi, Lodi, Italy
  • ,
  • Franco Galli, MD

      Affiliations

    • Maugeri Foundation, Pavia, Italy
  • ,
  • Simonetta Genovesi, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Clinical Medicine and Prevention, University Milano-Bicocca, Monza, Italy

Received 30 March 2010; accepted 24 June 2010. published online 27 August 2010.

Background

American and European guidelines recommend the distal radial-cephalic fistula (dRCF) as the first and best hemodialysis access in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). However, this kind of arteriovenous fistula (AVF) shows a limited primary unassisted patency and frequently needs surgical revisions or angiographic procedures, or both. When dRCF is not feasible, guidelines suggest a proximal brachiocephalic AVF. The middle-arm fistula (MAF), or autogenous forearm radial-median direct access, has been suggested as a possible alternative approach. This study evaluated MAF primary unassisted patency, the most frequent causes of MAF failure, and the possible related factors.

Methods

Data on patients with a MAF placed from January 1991 until June 2008 were retrospectively collected. The probability of MAF failure overall and by the main subgroups was estimated according to Kaplan-Meier with Greenwood standard error (SE). Comparison of failure among different subgroups was performed using the log rank test in univariate analyses. The Cox regression model was used to investigate factors that independently affected the overall hazard of failure and cause-specific hazard of thrombosis.

Results

At the end of follow-up, 14.0% of MAF failed (11.6% thrombosis, 1.7% stenosis, 0.7% failed maturation), and 44.2% of MAF were still working. Cumulative probability of MAF unassisted primary patency after 4 years from the creation was 79%. Univariate analyses highlighted that women (P = .019), underweight patients (P = .010), and MAF implantation after starting hemodialysis (P < .001) had a higher risk of MAF failure for any cause than men, normal and overweight patients, and MAF implanted before starting hemodialysis. Results of the Cox multivariate analysis for overall MAF failure confirmed that only MAF implantation before starting hemodialysis is a protective factor against any failure (P = .003), whereas female gender (P = .016) was associated with an increase of the thrombosis hazard ratio to 2.04 (95% confidence interval, 1.14-3.63).

Conclusion

Our data demonstrate that MAF has a good unassisted primary patency and suggest that this kind of AVF could be a valuable alternative surgical approach when dRCF is not feasible in ESRD patients.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 Competition of interest: none.

 The editors and reviewers of this article have no relevant financial relationships to disclose per the JVS policy that requires reviewers to decline review of any manuscript for which they may have a competition of interest.

PII: S0741-5214(10)01670-8

doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2010.06.165

Journal of Vascular Surgery
Volume 52, Issue 6 , Pages 1551-1556, December 2010