The number of patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) who require maintenance hemodialysis has risen sharply in the past 2 decades. It is estimated that more than 60% of all patients with ESRD who require chronic hemodialysis are accessed through an arteriovenous fistula (AVF) or graft (AVG), and the incidence is increasing at a rate of 2% to 4% per year. The long-term patency rate of an upper extremity AVF or AVG for hemodialysis access remains suboptimal owing in part to progressive stenosis at the venous anastomosis. This article reviews the causative factors of dialysis access-related anastomotic stenosis, or intimal hyperplasia. This article also reviews the clinical experience of various anastomotic strategies to ameliorate the hemodynamic environment in an effort to improve the clinical outcome of hemodialysis access. These strategies include the use of (1) vein cuff at the expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE)-venous anastomosis of AVG, (2) cuffed ePTFE dialysis AVG, and (3) anastomotic devices that create an interrupted anastomosis with staples or clips.
Lysaght MJ: Maintenance dialysis population dynamics: Current trends and long-term implications. J Am Soc Nephrol13(suppl 1):S37-S40, 2002.
3.
Feldman HI, Held PJ, Hutchinson JT, et al: Hemodialysis vascular access morbidity in the United States. Kidney Int43:1091-1096, 1993.
4.
Gibson KD, Gillen DL, Caps MT, et al: Vascular access survival and incidence of revisions: A comparison of prosthetic grafts, simple autogenous fistulas, and venous transposition fistulas from the United States Renal Data System Dialysis Morbidity and Mortality Study. J Vasc Surg34:694-700, 2001.
5.
Sullivan KL, Besarab A, Bonn J, et al: Hemodynamics of failing dialysis grafts. Radiology186:867-872, 1993.
6.
Roy-Chaudhury P, Munda R, Edwards J, et al: Hemodialysis vascular access dysfunction: From clinical stenosis to specific cell types. J Nephrol16:277-277, 2003.
7.
Roy-Chaudhury P, Kelly BS, Zhang J, et al: Hemodialysis vascular access dysfunction: From pathophysiology to novel therapies. Blood Purif21:99-110, 2003.
8.
Roy-Chaudhury P, Kelly BS, Narayana A, et al: Hemodialysis vascular access dysfunction: From basic biology to clinical intervention. Adv Ren Replace Ther9:74-84, 2002.
9.
Kelly BS, Heffelfinger SC, Whiting JF, et al: Aggressive venous neointimal hyperplasia in a pig model of arteriovenous graft stenosis. Kidney Int62:2272-2280, 2002.
10.
Hofstra L, Bergmans DC, Leunissen KM, et al: Anastomotic intimal hyperplasia in prosthetic arteriovenous fistulas for hemodialysis is associated with initial high flow velocity and not with mismatch in elastic properties. J Am Soc Nephrol6:1625-1633, 1995.
11.
Swedberg SH, Brown BG, Sigley R, et al: Intimal fibromuscular hyperplasia at the venous anastomosis of PTFE grafts in hemodialysis patients. Clinical, immunocytochemical, light and electron microscopic assessment. Circulation80:1726-1736, 1989.
12.
Zacharias RK, Kirkman TR, Kenagy RD, et al: Growth factor production by polytetrafluoroethylene vascular grafts. J Vasc Surg7:606-610, 1988.
13.
Golden MA, Au YP, Kenagy RD, et al: Growth factor gene expression by intimal cells in healing polytetrafluoroethylene grafts. J Vasc Surg11:580-585, 1990.
14.
Cantelmo NL, Quist WC, Lo Gerfo FW: Quantitative analysis of anastomotic intimal hyperplasia in paired Dacron and PTFE grafts. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino)30:910-915, 1989.
15.
Sterpetti AV, Cucina A, Santoro L, et al: Modulation of arterial smooth muscle cell growth by haemodynamic forces. Eur J Vasc Surg6:16-20, 1992.
16.
Fillinger MF, Reinitz ER, Schwartz RA, et al: Beneficial effects of banding on venous intimal-medial hyperplasia in arteriovenous loop grafts. Am J Surg158:87-94, 1989.
Kraiss LW, Kirkman TR, Kohler TR, et al: Shear stress regulates smooth muscle proliferation and neointimal thickening in porous polytetrafluoroethylene grafts. Arterioscler Thromb11:1844-1852, 1991.
19.
Faulkner SL, Fisher RD, Conkle DM, et al: Effect of blood flow rate on subendothelial proliferation in venous autografts used as arterial substitutes. Circulation52:I 163-I 172, 1975.
20.
Abbott WM, Megerman J, Hasson JE, et al: Effect of compliance mismatch on vascular graft patency. J Vasc Surg5:376-382, 1987.
21.
Wang LC, Guo GX, Tu R, et al: Graft compliance and anastomotic flow patterns. ASAIO Trans36:90-94, 1990.
22.
Sumpio BE, Banes AJ, Levin LG, et al: Mechanical stress stimulates aortic endothelial cells to proliferate. J Vasc Surg6:252-256, 1987.
23.
Sumpio BE, Banes AJ: Response of porcine aortic smooth muscle cells to cyclic tensional deformation in culture. J Surg Res44:696-701, 1988.
24.
Sumpio BE, Banes AJ, Buckley M, et al: Alterations in aortic endothelial cell morphology and cytoskeletal protein synthesis during cyclic tensional deformation. J Vasc Surg7:130-138, 1988.
25.
Tyrrell MR, Chester JF, Vipond MN, et al: Experi mental evidence to support the use of interposition vein collars/patches in distal PTFE anastomoses. Eur J Vasc Surg4:95-101, 1990.
26.
Clark RE, Apostolou S, Kardos JL: Mismatch of mechanical properties as a cause of arterial prostheses thrombosis. Surg Forum27:208-210, 1976.
27.
Miller JH, Foreman RK, Ferguson L, et al: Interposition vein cuff for anastomosis of prosthesis to small artery. Aust NZ J Surg54:283-285, 1984.
28.
Taylor RS, Loh A, McFarland RJ, et al: Improved technique for polytetrafluoroethylene bypass grafting: Long-term results using anastomotic vein patches. Br J Surg79:348-354, 1992.
29.
Gagne PJ, Martinez J, DeMassi R, et al: The effect of a venous anastomosis Tyrell vein collar on the primary patency of arteriovenous grafts in patients undergoing hemodialysis. J Vasc Surg32:1149-1154, 2000.
30.
Lemson MS, Tordoir JH, van Det RJ, et al: Effects of a venous cuff at the venous anastomosis of polytetrafluoroethylene grafts for hemodialysis vascular access. J Vasc Surg32:1155-1163, 2000.
31.
Escobar FS, Schwartz SA, Aboulijoud M: A preliminary study comparing a new “hooded” vs conventional ePTFE graft in hemodialysis patients. In: Vascular Access for Hemodialysis VI, ed. by Henry M. Chicago: Precept Press, 1998, pp 205-212.
32.
Fisher RK, Kirkpatrick UJ, How TV, et al: The distaflo graft: A valid alternative to interposition vein?Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg25:235-239, 2003.
33.
Lei M, Archie JP, Kleinstreuer C: Computational design of a bypass graft that minimizes wall shear stress gradients in the region of the distal anastomosis. J Vasc Surg25:637-646, 1997.
34.
Sorom AJ, Hughes CB, McCarthy JT, et al: Prospective, randomized evaluation of a cuffed expanded polytetrafluoroethylene graft for hemodialysis vascular access. Surgery132:135-140, 2002.
35.
Lumsden AB, Weaver FA, Hood DB: Prospective multi-center evaluation of VENAFLO ePTFE as compared to Impra ePTFE vascular graft in hemodialysis applications. In: Vascular Access for Hemodialysis, 4th ed., ed. by Henry ML. Chicago: WL Gore and Associates, and Precept Press, 1997, pp 242-249.
36.
Baumgartner N, Dobrin PB, Morasch M, et al: Influence of suture technique and suture material selection on the mechanics of end-to-end and end-to-side anastomoses. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg111:1063-1072, 1996.
37.
Hasson JE, Megerman J, Abbott WM: Suture technique and para-anastomotic compliance. J Vasc Surg3:591-598, 1986.
38.
Lee BY, Brancato RF, Shaw WW, et al: Effect of suture technique on blood velocity waveforms in the microvascular anastomosis of autogenous vein graft. Microsurgery4:151-156, 1983.
39.
Lin PL, Bush RL, Nelson CJ, et al: A prospective evaluation of interrupted nitinol U-Clips in arteriovenous fistula for hemodialysis. Am J Surg2003 (in press).
40.
Tozzi P, Hayoz D, Ruchat P, et al: Animal model to compare the effects of suture technique on cross-sectional compliance on end-to-side anastomoses. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg19:477-481, 2001.
41.
Baguneid MS, Goldner S, Fulford PE, et al: A comparison of para-anastomotic compliance profiles after vascular anastomosis: Nonpenetrating clips versus standard sutures. J Vasc Surg33:812-820, 2001.
42.
Loop FD, Lytle BW, Cosgrove DM, et al: Influence of the internal-mammary-artery graft on 10-year survival and other cardiac events. N Engl J Med314:1-6, 1986.
43.
Loop FD, Cosgrove DM, Kramer JR, et al: Late clinical and arteriographic results in 500 coronary artery reoperations. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg81:675-685, 1981.
44.
Hill AC, Maroney TP, Virmani R: Facilitated coronary anastomosis using a nitinol U-Clip device: Bovine model. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg121:859-870, 2001.
45.
Caskey MP, Kirshner MS, Alderman EL, et al: Sixmonth angiographic evaluation of beating-heart coronary arterial graft interrupted anastomoses using the coalescent U-Clip anastomotic device: A prospective clinical study. Heart Surg Forum5:319-326; discussion 327, 2002.
46.
Schild AF, Raines J: Preliminary prospective randomized experience with vascular clips in the creation of arteriovenous fistulae for hemodialysis. Am J Surg178:33-37, 1999.
47.
Cooper BZ, Flores L, Ramirez JA, et al: Analysis of nonpenetrating clips versus sutures for arterial venous graft anastomosis. Ann Vasc Surg15:7-12, 2001.
48.
Schild AF, Pruett CS, Newman MI, et al: The utility of the VCS clip for creation of vascular access for hemodialysis: Long-term results and intraoperative benefits. Cardiovasc Surg9:526-530, 2001.
