Feasibility for arteriovenous fistula creation with Ellipsys ®
Rattachement africain : fr, us. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the feasibility of percutaneous arteriovenous fistula creation in consecutive patients screened for first access creation. METHODS: Prospective study of ultrasound mapping based on the following minimal anatomic requirements: a patent proximal radial artery and adjacent elbow perforating vein with straight trajectory, each greater than or equal to 2 mm in diameter and within 1.5 mm of each other. In addition, the same population was evaluated for feasibility of a distal radiocephalic fistula established. RESULTS: . Thirty-seven percent of patients were ineligible because of the absence of both median cephalic and median cubital veins (15%), absence or inadequate elbow perforating vein and/or smaller than 2 mm proximal radial artery (14%), and/or distance greater than 1.5 mm (8%). We found suitable vessels for a surgical distal fistula creation in 91 extremities (45%), but this percentage dropped to 17% in patients over 70 years old. Among the 100 limbs eligible for percutaneous arteriovenous fistula, only 30 (30%) were eligible for radiocephalic arteriovenous fistula. CONCLUSION: More than 60% of patients were eligible for Ellipsys. The absence of veins at the elbow and a large distance between vessels were the most common limiting factors. Less than one half of the patients were candidates for surgical fistula and this percentage dropped significantly for older individuals.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé, mais le titre doit être comparé manuellement.
- Titre Crossref
- Feasibility for arteriovenous fistula creation with Ellipsys <sup>®</sup>
- Date Crossref
- 13/01/2020
- Éditeur
- SAGE Publications
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.