๐”– Bobbio Scriptorium
โœฆ   LIBER   โœฆ

Randomized clinical trial of continuous sutures or non-penetrating clips for radiocephalic arteriovenous fistula

โœ Scribed by C. J. Zeebregts; J. J. A. M. van den Dungen; R. J. van Det; E. L. G. Verhoeven; R. H. Geelkerken; R. van Schilfgaarde


Publisher
John Wiley and Sons
Year
2004
Tongue
English
Weight
112 KB
Volume
91
Category
Article
ISSN
0007-1323

No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.

โœฆ Synopsis


Abstract

Background

Despite several modifications to the original design, patency rates of radiocephalic arteriovenous fistulas have changed little since the first report in 1966. The use of non-penetrating clips for vascular anastomosis on the outcome of such fistulas was studied.

Methods

Between January 2000 and August 2003, 107 primary radiocephalic fistulas were constructed in 98 patients. The vascular anastomoses were performed at random with either sutures (n = 56) or clips (n = 51).

Results

Although there were trends for better primary and primary assisted patency of clipped fistulas, the differences were not statistically significant. The 6-month primary patency rate was 61 per cent with sutures and 69 per cent with clips (P = 0ยท393). The mean(s.d.) primary patency was 315(306) and 285(285) days for clipped and sutured fistulas respectively. With regard to secondary patency, clipped fistulas were better (P = 0ยท009). The mean(s.d.) secondary patency was 435(376) and 344(316) days for clipped and sutured fistulas, respectively. There were no significant differences in flow characteristics, number of revisions or other morbidity.

Conclusion

This randomized clinical trial provided further evidence that the use of vascular clips may improve the patency rate of radiocephalic arteriovenous fistulas for haemodialysis.


๐Ÿ“œ SIMILAR VOLUMES


Randomized clinical trial of continuous
โœ C. J. Zeebregts ๐Ÿ“‚ Article ๐Ÿ“… 2005 ๐Ÿ› John Wiley and Sons ๐ŸŒ English โš– 62 KB ๐Ÿ‘ 1 views

The Editors welcome topical correspondence from readers relating to articles published in the Journal. Responses can be sent electronically via the BJS website (www.bjs.co.uk) or by post. All letters will be reviewed and, if approved, appear on the website. A selection of these will be edited and pu