Outcome of Kidney Allografts in Recipients With a Femoral Arteriovenous Fistula: Report of Two Cases

Upper thigh loop prosthetic arterio-venous grafts (AVG) for dialysis access: An Indian perspective

INTRODUCTION

Hemodialysis forms the most common replacement therapy for majority of Indians suffering from chronic kidney disease (CKD). Multiple access failure and central vein stenosis has become commonplace in Indian dialysis access patients and there is a burgeoning need for more advanced hemodialysis (HD) access options. Upper thigh arterio-venous grafts (AVG) are seldom inserted due to fear of infection and limb ischemia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a single institutional, retrospective, descriptive case study of consecutive patients who underwent upper thigh prosthetic AVG over a period of 7 years. All these patients had exhausted options of upper limb access and or had central vein stenosis. AVG from the proximal superficial femoral artery (SFA) to the proximal great saphenous vein (GSV) in a loop configuration using polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) was carried out in the upper thigh.

RESULTS

A total of 24 patients had undergone upper thigh loop AVG. Their age varied from 24 to 77 years. The median follow-up period was 3 years. Five of these grafts developed infection (21%) which led to primary failure. A primary patency of 71% (17/24 patients) was achieved at 1 year. Thrombosis developed at a mean of 16.7 months after the primary procedure. Adjunctive procedures such as thrombectomy, segmental replacement of graft, patch angioplasty, balloon angioplasty, and stenting were required in 75% of patients to achieve a secondary patency of 86% at 1 year. Three grafts were explanted without limb loss.

CONCLUSION

Upper thigh loop AVG forms a reliable alternate dialysis access option for patients with failed upper limb access sites or central vein occlusion. Adjunctive procedures are key to maintaining patency in these grafts. Good secondary patency is achievable, and the infection rates are similar to arm AVG. Close follow-up and timely intervention are key to long term dialysis through these grafts.

The management of lower limb arteriovenous grafts in the perioperative period following renal transplantation

BACKGROUND

The presence of a lower limb arteriovenous graft (LL-AVG) is indicative of a group of complex hemodialysis patients who have precarious long-term vascular access. The aim of this study is to describe our experience of the clinical decisions and interactions between LL-AVG and renal transplantation.

METHODS

The records of 23 patients who received a transplant in the presence of a LL-AVG between 2010 and 2018 were analyzed: firstly, to determine whether patients with a LL-AVG received extended criteria transplants, the implantation procedure, and the management of the LL-AVG in the post-operative period.

RESULTS

Seventeen patients (74%) had "end-stage access" and were thus considered for all offer stratified by the kidney donor profile index (KDPI) and donor type (DBD or DCD). In eleven patients (48%), a kidney with a high risk of delayed graft function was transplanted. Same-sided renal transplantation occurred in only 35% of cases, and of these, only one LL-AVG was ligated immediately to improve transplant perfusion.

CONCLUSION

A patient-based approach applied in decision-making on management of the LL-AVG post-transplantation should include (a) the likelihood of delayed graft function, (b) the need for post-operative hemodialysis, (c) the side of proposed transplant compared to the LL-AVG, and (d) local complications.

Long-term results of thigh arteriovenous dialysis grafts

INTRODUCTION:

A proportion of hemodialysis patients exhaust all options for arteriovenous access in upper extremities. Arteriovenous thigh grafts are a potential vascular access option in such patients.

METHODS:

We performed a retrospective study of all thigh arteriovenous access grafts placed between 1995 and 2015. The clinical, demographic patient information and patency of each thigh graft was determined from the time of surgical creation placement until abandonment, transfer to other modality, or center or end of study, and the reason for access failure documented.

RESULTS:

In total, 44 patients received 49 thigh arteriovenous accesses. The average age was 60 years (13-79 years); Half (53%) of the patients (n = 24) were female and 61% of the patients (n = 30) of arteriovenous accesses were left-sided. The cumulative proportion surviving (primary patency rates) at 12, 24, and 28 months were 43% (standard error = 9%), 33% (standard error = 9%), and 13% (standard error = 9%), respectively. The cumulative proportion of surviving grafts at 12, 24, and 48 months were 61% (standard error = 8%), 58% (standard error = 9%), and 31% (standard error = 13%), respectively. In total, 37 revisions were performed in 22 patients to maintain patency or eradicate infection. Infection occurred in 20 patients (39%) of thigh grafts requiring 16 patients (80% of those affected) to be removed; 14 patients had grafts (33.3%) that served as the lone hemodialysis arteriovenous access during the patients' lifetime on dialysis.

CONCLUSION:

Arteriovenous thigh graft access is used infrequently, but they have an acceptable patency. Some accesses require revisions and they have a high infection rate. Despite this, an acceptable proportion of leg grafts provide durable access for the dialysis lifetime of the patient.