Long-term outcomes after autogenous versus synthetic lower extremity bypass in patients on hemodialysis

20Citations
Citations of this article
28Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Background Hemodialysis dependence confers unique physiologic conditions. Prior reports of outcomes after infrainguinal open bypass operations in patients on hemodialysis have been based on relatively small sample institutional series. In this study, we evaluate long-term outcomes after open bypass operations in a large contemporary population-based cohort of hemodialysis patients. We studied all hemodialysis patients who underwent infrainguinal open operation using autogenous versus prosthetic conduits in the United States Renal Data System between January 2007 and December 2011. Methods Univariate methods (χ2, analysis of variance) were used to compare the characteristics of the patient and type of bypass. Kaplan-Meier, univariate and multivariate logistic, and Cox regression analyses were used to evaluate 30-day postoperative outcomes as well as patency, limb salvage, and mortality in the long term. Results There were 9,739 (autogenous: 59%, prosthetic: 49%) infrainguinal open bypass operations performed in this cohort. Of these, 4,717 (48%) were femoral-popliteal, 3,321 (34%) were femoral-tibial, and 1,701 (18%) were popliteal-tibial bypasses. Bypass operations were performed most commonly for critical limb ischemia (72%). Primary patency was 18% for both types of conduits at 5 years (P =.16). Comparing autogenous versus prosthetic conduits, primary-assisted patency was 23% vs 20% at 5 years (P =.98), while secondary patency was 30% for both conduits at 5 years (P =.05). Limb salvage was 35% vs 41% at 5 years (P

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Arhuidese, I., Hicks, C. W., Locham, S., Obeid, T., Nejim, B., & Malas, M. B. (2017). Long-term outcomes after autogenous versus synthetic lower extremity bypass in patients on hemodialysis. Surgery (United States), 162(5), 1071–1079. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2017.04.026

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free