title: Challenges of hemodialysis access for high risk patients: Impact of mesenteric vein bioprosthetic graft.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  The purpose of this study is to compare in a prospective fashion the performance of a new bioprosthesis, the mesenteric vein bioprosthesis (MVB), in patients who have had multiple failed ePTFE grafts. Performance measures include primary patency rates, assisted-primary patency rates, secondary patency rates, complications, and the number of interventions required to maintain graft patency.
  
  
  METHODS
  From October 1999 to February 2002, 276 hemodialysis access grafts were implanted in a multicenter study. Of those grafts, 74 were placed in patients with a prior history of 3 failed prosthetic grafts (mean = 3.5 grafts, range = 3-6 grafts). Fifty-nine grafts were constructed with MVB, and 15 grafts with ePTFE as a concomitant control. Mean follow-up was 11.5 months. In the MVB group, 79.7% were African-Americans, 61% were females, and 23.7% were hypercoagulable. Of the ePTFE group, 86.7% were African-Americans, 46.7% were female, and 13.2% were hypercoagulable. Results : Per Kaplan-Meier curves, the primary patency rate of the MVB group at 12 months was 33% vs the ePTFE group of 18% (p=0.120); the assisted-primary patency rates at 12 months were 45% MVB vs 18% ePTFE (p=0.011). The secondary patency rates at 12 and 24 months for the MVB group were 67% and 59%, respectively, vs 45% and 15% for the ePTFE group (p=0.006). During the follow-up time period, 80% of the ePTFE grafts were abandoned compared to 34% of the MVB group. Infection and thrombosis rates in the MVB group were lower than the ePTFE group. The infection rate for the MVB group requiring intervention was 0.07 events/graft year (gt/y) compared to 0.30 events/gt-y for ePTFE (p=0.04). A thrombosis rate of 0.69 events/gt-y occurred in the MVB group whereas 2.50 events/gt-y presented in the ePTFE group (p<0.01).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  In this study, high-risk patients (defined as those having multiple failed prosthetic grafts for hemodialysis) in whom the MVB conduit for hemoaccess was implanted, showed significant improvement in assisted-primary and secondary patency rates compared to the ePTFE cohort. The MVB group, however, did not have a statistically better primary patency rate compared to the ePTFE group. The MVB patient also had fewer thrombotic and infectious events and an overall reduction in the number of interventions while maintaining a permanent access site. This new bioprosthesis should be the conduit of choice in the complex group of patients as it offers assisted-primary and secondary patency rates similar to those commonly experienced by patients without a history of multiple graft failures.
authors.affiliation: Vascular Transplant Specialists, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, Virginia.
authors.forename: M H
authors.initials: MH
authors.lastname: Glickman
authors.forename: J H
authors.initials: JH
authors.lastname: Lawson
authors.forename: H E
authors.initials: HE
authors.lastname: Katzman
authors.forename: A F
authors.initials: AF
authors.lastname: Schild
authors.forename: R M
authors.initials: RM
authors.lastname: Fujitani