FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3134541756> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3134541756 endingPage "529.e1" @default.
• W3134541756 startingPage "520" @default.
• W3134541756 abstract "Rationale & ObjectivePercutaneous arteriovenous fistulas (AVF) are created by establishing a proximal forearm anastomosis and offer a safe and reliable vascular access. This study compares the Ellipsys percutaneous AVF with a proximal forearm Gracz-type surgical AVF, chosen for comparison as it is constructed at the same anatomical site.Study DesignRetrospective study of prospectively collected clinical data.Setting & ParticipantsAll vascular access procedures conducted during a 34-month period were reviewed. The study groups comprised 89 percutaneous AVFs and 69 surgical AVFs.ExposurePercutaneous or surgical AVF placement.OutcomeAVF patency, function, and complications.Analytical ApproachPatency rates for each AVF group were evaluated by competing risk survival analysis using a cumulative incidence function. Association of primary, primary assisted, and secondary patency with the AVF groups was examined by Cox proportional hazard models.ResultsTechnical success was 100% for both groups. Average procedure times were 14 minutes for percutaneous AVFs and 74 minutes for surgical AVFs (P < 0.001). Proximal radial artery (PRA) was used in all percutaneous AVF cases. Inflow for surgical AVFs included radial (30%), ulnar (12%), and brachial (58%) arteries. Outflow veins for both groups were the cephalic and/or basilic veins. Access flow volumes, times to maturation, and overall numbers of interventions per patient-year were not significantly different. Cumulative incidence of primary patency failure at 12 months was lower for surgical AVF (47% vs 64%, P = 0.1), but secondary patency failure was not different between groups (20% vs 12%, P = 0.3). PRA surgical AVFs had similar primary patency (65% vs 64%, P = 0.8) but higher secondary patency failure rates than percutaneous AVFs at 12 months (34% vs 12%, P = 0.04).LimitationsRetrospective study with a relatively short follow-up period, and not all patients required hemodialysis at the end of study.ConclusionsBoth percutaneous and surgical AVFs demonstrated high rates of technical success and secondary patency. Percutaneous AVFs required shorter procedure times. The rate of intervention was similar. When a distal radial artery AVF is not feasible, percutaneous AVF might offer an appropriate procedure for creating a safe and functional access, maintaining further proximal forearm surgical AVF creation options. Percutaneous arteriovenous fistulas (AVF) are created by establishing a proximal forearm anastomosis and offer a safe and reliable vascular access. This study compares the Ellipsys percutaneous AVF with a proximal forearm Gracz-type surgical AVF, chosen for comparison as it is constructed at the same anatomical site. Retrospective study of prospectively collected clinical data. All vascular access procedures conducted during a 34-month period were reviewed. The study groups comprised 89 percutaneous AVFs and 69 surgical AVFs. Percutaneous or surgical AVF placement. AVF patency, function, and complications. Patency rates for each AVF group were evaluated by competing risk survival analysis using a cumulative incidence function. Association of primary, primary assisted, and secondary patency with the AVF groups was examined by Cox proportional hazard models. Technical success was 100% for both groups. Average procedure times were 14 minutes for percutaneous AVFs and 74 minutes for surgical AVFs (P < 0.001). Proximal radial artery (PRA) was used in all percutaneous AVF cases. Inflow for surgical AVFs included radial (30%), ulnar (12%), and brachial (58%) arteries. Outflow veins for both groups were the cephalic and/or basilic veins. Access flow volumes, times to maturation, and overall numbers of interventions per patient-year were not significantly different. Cumulative incidence of primary patency failure at 12 months was lower for surgical AVF (47% vs 64%, P = 0.1), but secondary patency failure was not different between groups (20% vs 12%, P = 0.3). PRA surgical AVFs had similar primary patency (65% vs 64%, P = 0.8) but higher secondary patency failure rates than percutaneous AVFs at 12 months (34% vs 12%, P = 0.04). Retrospective study with a relatively short follow-up period, and not all patients required hemodialysis at the end of study. Both percutaneous and surgical AVFs demonstrated high rates of technical success and secondary patency. Percutaneous AVFs required shorter procedure times. The rate of intervention was similar. When a distal radial artery AVF is not feasible, percutaneous AVF might offer an appropriate procedure for creating a safe and functional access, maintaining further proximal forearm surgical AVF creation options." @default.
• W3134541756 created "2021-03-15" @default.
• W3134541756 creator A5006449022 @default.
• W3134541756 creator A5009836926 @default.
• W3134541756 creator A5015422927 @default.
• W3134541756 creator A5017264653 @default.
• W3134541756 creator A5035518826 @default.
• W3134541756 creator A5080597745 @default.
• W3134541756 creator A5084906276 @default.
• W3134541756 date "2021-10-01" @default.
• W3134541756 modified "2023-10-14" @default.
• W3134541756 title "Comparison of Ellipsys Percutaneous and Proximal Forearm Gracz-Type Surgical Arteriovenous Fistulas" @default.
• W3134541756 cites W1970270852 @default.
• W3134541756 cites W1971284567 @default.
• W3134541756 cites W1973031258 @default.
• W3134541756 cites W1977197263 @default.
• W3134541756 cites W1979187236 @default.
• W3134541756 cites W1986862277 @default.
• W3134541756 cites W1988629806 @default.
• W3134541756 cites W2001051314 @default.
• W3134541756 cites W2026385971 @default.
• W3134541756 cites W2038570295 @default.
• W3134541756 cites W2041077498 @default.
• W3134541756 cites W2047916422 @default.
• W3134541756 cites W2048734122 @default.
• W3134541756 cites W2064579071 @default.
• W3134541756 cites W2073772081 @default.
• W3134541756 cites W2075487734 @default.
• W3134541756 cites W2084001563 @default.
• W3134541756 cites W2088450550 @default.
• W3134541756 cites W2108281918 @default.
• W3134541756 cites W2111497195 @default.
• W3134541756 cites W2116547763 @default.
• W3134541756 cites W2148975058 @default.
• W3134541756 cites W2153352192 @default.
• W3134541756 cites W2154398239 @default.
• W3134541756 cites W2197309906 @default.
• W3134541756 cites W2470447275 @default.
• W3134541756 cites W2566375200 @default.
• W3134541756 cites W2738138728 @default.
• W3134541756 cites W2754614775 @default.
• W3134541756 cites W2778667331 @default.
• W3134541756 cites W2801989953 @default.
• W3134541756 cites W2903417092 @default.
• W3134541756 cites W2918092070 @default.
• W3134541756 cites W2919910165 @default.
• W3134541756 cites W2975689879 @default.
• W3134541756 cites W2976488935 @default.
• W3134541756 cites W3012497879 @default.
• W3134541756 cites W3048446251 @default.
• W3134541756 doi "https://doi.org/10.1053/j.ajkd.2021.01.011" @default.
• W3134541756 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33662481" @default.
• W3134541756 hasPublicationYear "2021" @default.
• W3134541756 type Work @default.
• W3134541756 sameAs 3134541756 @default.
• W3134541756 citedByCount "20" @default.
• W3134541756 countsByYear W31345417562021 @default.
• W3134541756 countsByYear W31345417562022 @default.
• W3134541756 countsByYear W31345417562023 @default.
• W3134541756 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W3134541756 hasAuthorship W3134541756A5006449022 @default.
• W3134541756 hasAuthorship W3134541756A5009836926 @default.
• W3134541756 hasAuthorship W3134541756A5015422927 @default.
• W3134541756 hasAuthorship W3134541756A5017264653 @default.
• W3134541756 hasAuthorship W3134541756A5035518826 @default.
• W3134541756 hasAuthorship W3134541756A5080597745 @default.
• W3134541756 hasAuthorship W3134541756A5084906276 @default.
• W3134541756 hasBestOaLocation W31345417561 @default.
• W3134541756 hasConcept C126838900 @default.
• W3134541756 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W3134541756 hasConcept C2776820930 @default.
• W3134541756 hasConcept C2777604165 @default.
• W3134541756 hasConcept C2778218979 @default.
• W3134541756 hasConcept C2779063477 @default.
• W3134541756 hasConcept C2780214079 @default.
• W3134541756 hasConcept C2780813298 @default.
• W3134541756 hasConcept C2781184374 @default.
• W3134541756 hasConcept C2910396648 @default.
• W3134541756 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W3134541756 hasConcept C84393581 @default.
• W3134541756 hasConcept C8443397 @default.
• W3134541756 hasConceptScore W3134541756C126838900 @default.
• W3134541756 hasConceptScore W3134541756C141071460 @default.
• W3134541756 hasConceptScore W3134541756C2776820930 @default.
• W3134541756 hasConceptScore W3134541756C2777604165 @default.
• W3134541756 hasConceptScore W3134541756C2778218979 @default.
• W3134541756 hasConceptScore W3134541756C2779063477 @default.
• W3134541756 hasConceptScore W3134541756C2780214079 @default.
• W3134541756 hasConceptScore W3134541756C2780813298 @default.
• W3134541756 hasConceptScore W3134541756C2781184374 @default.
• W3134541756 hasConceptScore W3134541756C2910396648 @default.
• W3134541756 hasConceptScore W3134541756C71924100 @default.
• W3134541756 hasConceptScore W3134541756C84393581 @default.
• W3134541756 hasConceptScore W3134541756C8443397 @default.
• W3134541756 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W3134541756 hasLocation W31345417561 @default.
• W3134541756 hasLocation W31345417562 @default.
• W3134541756 hasOpenAccess W3134541756 @default.

• next