The end stage of dialysis access: femoral graft or HeRO vascular access device.

Maintaining and establishing vascular access in end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients is complicated when they are poor candidates for traditional upper extremity access. Our objective was to compare our experience with 2 alternative dialysis accesses, the femoral arteriovenous graft (fAVG) and the Hemodialysis Reliable Outflow (HeRO), in patients with limited remaining options. A single institution, retrospective review of ESRD patients with fAVG or HeRO placed between May 2009 and February 2013 was performed. Adult patients were selected by reviewing all arteriovenous grafts placed at a single institution. Patient demographics, medical history, access characteristics, and outcomes were recorded from both institutional and dialysis center databases. Data were evaluated using Fisher's exact test, unpaired t-test for continuous variables, log-rank test, and univariate analysis. A total of 56 accesses in 43 unique patients met these criteria: 35 fAVG and 21 HeRO; with 1 HeRO patient lost immediately to follow-up. Clinical variables were similar except the HeRO group had more diabetic patients (60% HeRO, 22.9% fAVG; P = 0.01). The average number of years on hemodialysis was 7.0 ± 1.0 for fAVG and 5.7 ± 0.9 for HeRO (P = 0.41). Primary patency was 40.5%, 18.7%, and 14.9% for fAVG and 29.0%, 29.0%, and 0% for HeRO at 6 months, 12 months, and 2 years (P = 0.67), respectively. Assisted primary patency was also similar, with 43.8%, 29.4%, and 13.8% for fAVG and 34.8%, 34.8%, and 17.4% for HeRO at 6 months, 12 months, and 2 years (P = 0.81), respectively. Secondary patency was 62.6%, 50.6%, 19.3% for fAVG and 68.0%, 53.5%, 38.3% for HeRO at 6 months, 12 months, and 2 years (P = 0.69), respectively. Average number of interventions to maintain patency for fAVG was 1.1 ± 1.47 and 1.65 ± 2.52 for HeRO (P = 0.35). Infectious complications occurred in 29% of fAVG and 15% of HeRO (P = 0.33). Patients who received either fAVG or HeRO experience poor access patency. ESRD patients who receive either of these procedures appear to be at the end stage of available access options.

Kudlaty EA ，Pan J ，Allemang MT ，Kendrick DE ，Kashyap VS ，Wong VL ... -  《-》

A comparison of patency and interventions in thigh versus Hemodialysis Reliable Outflow grafts for chronic hemodialysis vascular access.

With improvements in medical management and survival of patients with end-stage renal disease, maintaining durable vascular access is increasingly challenging. This study compared primary, assisted primary, and secondary patency, and procedure-specific complications, and evaluated whether the number of interventions to maintain or restore patency differed between prosthetic femoral-femoral looped inguinal access (thigh) grafts and Hemodialysis Reliable Outflow (HeRO; Hemosphere Inc, Minneapolis, Minn) grafts. A single-center, retrospective, intention-to-treat analysis was conducted of consecutive thigh and HeRO grafts placed between May 2004 and June 2015. Medical history, interventions to maintain or restore patency, and complications were abstracted from the electronic medical record. Data were analyzed using parametric and nonparametric statistical tests, Kaplan-Meier survival methods, and multivariable proportional hazards regression and logistic regression. Seventy-six (43 thigh, 33 HeRO) grafts were placed in 61 patients (54% male; age 53 [standard deviation, 13] years). Median follow-up time in the intention-to-treat analysis was 21.2 months (min, 0.0; max, 85.3 months) for thigh grafts and 6.7 months (min, 0.0; max, 56.3 months) for HeRO grafts (P = .02). The groups were comparable for sex, age, coronary artery disease, diabetes mellitus, peripheral vascular disease, and smoking history (all P ≥ .12). One thigh graft (2%) and five HeRO (15%) grafts failed primarily. In the intention-to-treat analysis, patency durations were significantly longer in the thigh grafts (all log-rank P ≤ .01). Point estimates of primary patency at 6 months, 1 year, and 3 years were 61%, 46%, and 4% for the thigh grafts and 25%, 15%, and 6% for the HeRO grafts. Point estimates of assisted primary patency at 6 months, 1 year, and 3 years were 75%, 66%, and 54% for the thigh grafts and 41%, 30%, and 10% for the HeRO grafts. Point estimates of secondary patency at 6 months, 1 year, and 3 years were 88%, 88%, and 70% for the thigh grafts and 53%, 43%, and 12% for the HeRO grafts. There were no differences in ischemic (P = .63) or infectious (P = .79) complications between the groups. Multivariable logistic regression demonstrated that after adjusting for follow-up time, HeRO grafts were associated with an increased number of interventions (P = .03). Thigh grafts have significantly better primary, assisted primary, and secondary patency compared with HeRO grafts. There is no significant difference between thigh grafts and HeRO grafts in ischemic or infectious complications. Our logistic regression model demonstrated an association between HeRO grafts and an increased number of interventions to maintain or restore patency. Although HeRO grafts may extend the use of the upper extremity, thigh grafts provide a more durable option for chronic hemodialysis.

Brownie ER ，Kensinger CD ，Feurer ID ，Moore DE ，Shaffer D ... -  《-》

Outcomes comparison of HeRO and lower extremity arteriovenous grafts in patients with long-standing renal failure.

The Hemodialysis Reliable Outflow (HeRO) graft is becoming a recognized alternative to lower extremity arteriovenous grafts (LEAVGs) as an option for patients who have exhausted traditional upper extremity access; however, which should be applied preferentially is unclear. A retrospective review of LEAVG and HeRO implants from January 2004 to August 2010 was performed. Patient demographics, medical history, procedural data, and outcomes were evaluated. Within the time periods, 60 HeROs were placed in 59 patients and 22 LEAVGs were placed in 21 patients. Demographics were similar between the two groups for many factors; however, the patients who underwent HeRO placement had significantly higher body mass index compared with the LEAVG group. Mean follow-up was 13.9 months for the HeRO group and 11.9 months for the LEAVG group. The HeRO patients underwent a mean of 6.3 previous tunneled dialysis catheter insertions and 3.1 previous AVG/arteriovenous fistula placements. The LEAVG patients underwent placement of a mean of 4.1 previous tunneled dialysis catheters and 2.6 previous AVG/arteriovenous fistulas. The principal difference was the number of interventions to maintain patency, which was 2.21 per year in the HeRO group and 1.17 per year in the AVG group (P = .003) Secondary patency at 6 months was 77% for the HeRO patients and 83% for the LEAVG patients (P = .14). The HeRO and LEAVG groups had no difference in infection rate per 1000 days (0.61 vs 0.71; P = .77) or mortality rate (22% vs 19% respectively; P = .22) at 6 months. In access challenged patients, LEAVG and HeRO offer similar rates of secondary patency, infection, and all-cause mortality. The LEAVG required fewer interventions to maintain patency, and the HeRO maintains the benefit of utilizing the upper extremity site of venous drainage. In our practice, we prefer the HeRO to LEAVG, especially in patients with peripheral arterial disease and in the obese population, because it preserves lower extremity access options.

Steerman SN ，Wagner J ，Higgins JA ，Kim C ，Mirza A ，Pavela J ，Panneton JM ，Glickman MH ... -  《-》

Primary and secondary patencies of transposed femoral vein fistulas are significantly greater than with the HeRO graft.

Ladenheim ED ，Lulic D ，Lum C ，Agrawal S ... -  《-》

Cost analysis of the Hemodialysis Reliable Outflow (HeRO) Graft compared to the tunneled dialysis catheter.

In end-stage renal disease patients with central venous obstruction, who have limited vascular access options, the Hemodialysis Reliable Outflow (HeRO) Graft is a new alternative with a lower incidence of complications and longer effective device life compared to tunneled dialysis catheters (TDCs). We undertook an economic analysis of introducing the HeRO Graft in the UK. A 1-year cost-consequence decision analytic model was developed comparing management with the HeRO Graft to TDCs from the perspective of the National Health Service in England. The model comprises four 3-month cycles during which the vascular access option either remains functional for hemodialysis or fails, patients can experience access-related infection and device thrombosis, and they can also accrue associated costs. Clinical input data were sourced from published studies and unit cost data from National Health Service 2014-15 Reference Costs. In the base case, a 100-patient cohort managed with the HeRO Graft experienced 6 fewer failed devices, 53 fewer access-related infections, and 67 fewer device thromboses compared to patients managed with TDCs. Although the initial device and placement costs for the HeRO Graft are greater than those for TDCs, savings from the lower incidence of device complications and longer effective device patency reduces these costs. Overall net annual costs are £2600 for each HeRO Graft-managed patient compared to TDC-managed patients. If the National Health Service were to reimburse hemodialysis at a uniform rate regardless of the type of vascular access, net 1-year savings of £1200 per patient are estimated for individuals managed with the HeRO Graft. The base case results showed a marginal net positive cost associated with vascular access with the HeRO Graft compared with TDCs for the incremental clinical benefit of reductions in patency failures, device-related thrombosis, and access-related infection events in a patient population with limited options for dialysis vascular access.

Al Shakarchi J ，Inston N ，Jones RG ，Maclaine G ，Hollinworth D ... -  《-》