LONG-TERM RESULTS OF USING THE KEMANGIOPROTEZ VASCULAR XENOGRAFT IN COMPARISON WITH THE VENAFLO II EPTFE VASCULAR GRAFT IN PATIENTS UNDERGOING CHRONIC HEMODIALYSIS

Highlights

For the first time, the long-term outcome of using the KemAngioprotez vascular xenograft as a permanent vascular access in patients undergoing chronic hemodialysis will be described and comparative assessed with synthetic Venaflo II ePTFE vascular graft.

Abstract

Aim. To study whether the KemAngioprotez vascular xenograft is an effective alternative to Venaflo II ePTFE vascular graft in patients undergoing chronic hemodialysis.

Methods. The study included 44 patients with KemAngioprotez vascular xenograft and 26 patients with Venaflo II ePTFE vascular graft. The follow-up period was ≥ 12 months from the moment of the creation of permanent hemodialysis vascular access. The endpoints of the study included the patency of the prosthesis, which was assessed over a period of 3.6 and 12 months, respectively, as well as adverse events: death from any cause, infectious complications, bleeding from the prosthesis, aneurysm and thrombosis of the prosthesis.

Results. Based on a comparative analysis and a comparison of long-term results, there were no statistically significant differences in adverse events during the 12-month follow-up period. The indicators of the primary and secondary endpoint after 12 months in the KemAngioprotez group were 1.375 and 1.789 times higher, respectively, compared with the Venaflo II group. Venaflo II ePTFE grafts are 2,593 times more susceptible to infectious complications. Synthetic grafts, in this study, are devoid of such a complication as aneurysmal dilation, in comparison with the KemAngioprotez vascular xenograft.

Conclusions. In clinical practice, when providing vascular access for long-term renal replacement therapy, the KemAngioprotez vascular xenograft is an effective alternative to the Venaflo II ePTFE vascular graft. The disadvantages of vascular xenografts are aneurysmal dilatations, the advantages are a low risk of infectious complications.

1. Singh N., Starnes B.W., Andersen C. Successful angioaccess. Surg Clin North Am. 2007;87(5):1213-28, xi. doi: 10.1016/j.suc.2007.08.004.

2. Аrhuidese I., Reifsnyder T., Islam T., Karim O., Nejim B., Obeid T., Qazi U., Malas M. Bovine carotid artery biologic graft outperforms expanded polytetrafluoroethylene for hemodialysis access. J Vasc Surg. 2017;65(3):775-782. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2016.10.080.

3. Aziz M., Albert P., Connelly Z.M., Lairmore T.C., Virk C. A Retrospective Review of Bovine Artery Graft Patency: A Single-Site Study. Ann Vasc Surg. 2023;94:272-279. doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2023.02.006

4. Gou W., Tuo Y.H. Comparison of mortality and its causes in patients with complicated systemic lupus erythematosus on hemodialysis versus peritoneal dialysis: A meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2022;101(32):e30090. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000030090

5. Sadovsky A.A., Sultanov R.V., Turyeva M.V., Moses G.V., Radaeva E.V., Elgina S.I., Moses K.B., Center Ya.. Thrombosis of arteriovenous crafts. The relevance of the problem. Medicine in Kuzbass. 2023;3:43-48 (In Russian)

6. Ma L., Zhao S. Risk factors for mortality in patients undergoing hemodialysis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Cardiol. 2017;238:151-158. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2017.02.095

7. Kingsmore D.B., Stevenson K.S., Jackson A., Desai S.S., Thompson P., Karydis N., Franchin M., White B., Tozzi M., Isaak A. Arteriovenous Access Graft Infection: Standards of Reporting and Implications for Comparative Data Analysis. Ann Vasc Surg. 2020;63:391-398. doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2019.08.081.

8. Chow B.J., Chowdary P., Khurram M., Mohamed I.H. Management of infected arteriovenous grafts for haemodialysis: Outcomes and strategies using a novel objective scoring system. J Vasc Access. 2024;25(4):1293-1300. doi: 10.1177/11297298231160573.

9. Al Shakarchi J., McGrogan D., Yates P.J., Inston N. Use of biosynthetic grafts (Omniflow II) for high infection risk haemodialysis vascular access. J Vasc Access. 2016;17(2):151-4. doi: 10.5301/jva.5000462

10. Grinev K. M., Karpov S. A., Alferov S. V. Non-thrombotic сomplications of permanent vascular access in dialysis cases and techniques for their surgical correction. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Medicine. 2017; 12(4):340-353. doi: 10.21638/11701/spbu11.2017.404 (In Russian)

11. Barth U., Wasseroth K., Meyer F. Graftaneurysmen als Langzeitkomplikation einer Polyesterprothese und deren Management : Kurzübersicht anhand einer systematischen Literaturanalyse [Graft aneurysms as long-term complication of polyester prostheses and their management: Brief review based on a systematic review of the literature]. Chirurg. 2018;89(3):212-221. German. doi: 10.1007/s00104-017-0530-0.

12. Kalinin R. E., Suchkov I. A., Pshennikov A. S., Mzhavanadze N. D., Egorov A.A. Vascular access for hemodialysis – yesterday, today, tomorrow. Medical bulletin of the north caucasus 2016;11(1):120-125. (In Russian)

13. Thomas M., Nesbitt C., Ghouri M., Hansrani M. Maintenance of Hemodialysis Vascular Access and Prevention of Access Dysfunction: A Review. Ann Vasc Surg. 2017;43:318-327. doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2017.02.014

14. Hiyamuta H., Yamada S., Taniguchi M., Nakano T., Tsuruya K., Kitazono T. Causes of death in patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis in Japan: 10-year outcomes of the Q-Cohort Study. Clin Exp Nephrol. 2021;25(10):1121-1130. doi: 10.1007/s10157-021-02089-6