Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Shuntchirurgie in Europa und den USA

Ein kritischer Vergleich

Shunt surgery in Europe and USA

A critical comparison

  • Shuntchirurgie
  • Published:
Gefässchirurgie Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Nach einem anfänglich gemeinsamen Weg in der Fistelchirurgie begann in den USA ab etwa 1975 der bevorzugte Einsatz von Prothesenshunts. In bis zu 80% wurden bei Erstoperationen Gefäßprothesen implantiert, mit entsprechend hoher Komplikationsrate und hohen Folgekosten. Europa pflegte, mit lokalen Unterschieden, das Konzept der vorzugsweisen Verwendung von arteriovenösen Fisteln weiter (AVF). Der Prothesenanteil war nie höher als 40%. Unterstützt von Richtlinien, versuchen die USA seit 1997 einen deutlichen Umschwung herbeizuführen. Der Anteil primärer AVF ist seither angestiegen, bei allerdings wohl erhöhter initialer Versagerquote im internationalen Vergleich.

Über Richtlinien hinaus sollte für beide Kontinente als vordringliche Aufgaben die interdisziplinäre Zusammenarbeit aller beteiligten Fachgebiete gelten:

  • Durchführung zertifizierter, interdisziplinärer Kurse mit konsensfähigen Inhalten,

  • Einrichtung von Referenzzentren mit einheitlicher, umfassender Dokumentation,

  • Aufbau von Datenbanken zur Qualitätskontrolle mit abrufbaren Komplikations- und Funktionsraten,

  • Standardisierung der Überwachung von Gefäßzugängen im Dialysezentrum.

Abstract

Surgeons in USA and Europe initially followed the same path in surgery for the creation of arteriovenous fistulas, until from about 1975 US surgeons started to prefer to use prosthetic shunts. Prosthetic shunts were then used in up to 80% of primary procedures, with correspondingly high complication rates and high subsequent costs. With some local differences, in Europe the use of arteriovenous fistulas(AVF) is still preferred. The proportion of grafts used has never exceeded 40% in Europe. Since 1997, supported by newly created guidelines US physicians have been trying to reverse the trend and promote the use of AVF again. These efforts have resulted in a rising proportion of fistulas, but the early failure rate has been higher than in Europe.

Apart from the guidelines, the most important task for vascular surgeons in both continents should be to ensure the cooperation of all medical specialities involved with the objectives of:

  • Implementation certified interdisciplinary courses whose content can be accepted by all concerned;

  • Establishment of reference centres with standardised, comprehensive documentation;

  • Maintenance of databases for quality control, with complication and patency rates easily called up;

  • standardisation of access surveillance and monitoring in dialysis units.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3
Abb. 4
Abb. 5

Literatur

  1. Allon M, Ornt DB, Schwab SJ et al. (2000) Factors associated with the prevalence of arteriovenous fistulas in hemodialysis patients in the HEMO study. Hemodialysis (HEMO) Study Group. Kidney Int 58: 2178–2185

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Bakran A, Mickley V, Passlick-Deetjen J (Hrsg) (2003) Management of the renal patient: clinical algorithms on vascular access for haemodialysis. Pabst Science Publishers, Lengerich

  3. Bell LK (2005) Improving arteriovenous fistula cannulation skills. Nephrol Nurs J 32: 611–617

    Google Scholar 

  4. Brescia MJ, Cimino JE, Appel K, Hurwich BJ (1966) Chronic hemodialysis using venipuncture and a surgically created arteriovenous fistula. N Engl J Med 275: 1089–1092

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Dhingra RK, Young EW, Hulbert-Shearon TE et al. (2001) Type of vascular access and mortality in US hemodialysis patients. Kidney Int 60: 1443–1451

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Goodkin DA, Young EW, Kurokawa K et al. (2004) Mortality among hemodialysis patients in Europe, Japan, and the United States: case-mix effects. Am J Kidney Dis (Suppl 2) 44: 16–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Katzman HE, Glickman MH, Schild AF et al. (2005) Multicenter evaluation of the bovine mesenteric vein bioprostheses for hemodialysis access in patients with an earlier failed prosthetic graft. J Am Coll Surg 201: 223–230

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Konner K (2000) Primary vascular access in diabetic patients: an audit. Nephrol Dial Transplant 15: 1317–1325

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Matsuda H, Miyazaki M, Oka Y et al. (2003) A polyurethane vascular access graft and a hybrid polytetrafluoroethylene graft as an arteriovenous fistula for hemodialysis: Comparison with an expanded polytetrafluoroethylene graft. Artif Organs 27: 722–727

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. NKF-DOQI Clinical practice guidelines for vascular access. New York, National Kidney Foundation, 2006 Updates (2006), Am J Kidney Dis (Suppl S1) 48: 176–273

    Google Scholar 

  11. Oliver MJ, Callery SM, Thorpe KE et al. (2000) Risk of bacteraemia from temporary hemodialysis catheters by site of insertion and duration of use: a prospective study. Kidney Int 58: 2543–2545

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Peng CW, Tan SG (2003) Polyurethane grafts: A viable alternative for dialysis arteriovenous access? Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann 11: 314–318

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Perera GB, Mueller MP, Kubaska SM et al. (2004) Superiority of autogenous arteriovenous hemodialysis access: Maintenance of function with fewer secondary interventions. Ann Vasc Surg 18: 66–73

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Pisoni RL, Young EW, Dykstra DM et al. (2002) Vascular access use in Europe and the United States: Results from the DOPPS. Kidney Int 61: 305–316

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Port FK, Pisoni RL, Bommer J et al. (2006) Improving outcomes for dialysis patients in the international Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 1: 246–255

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Quarello F, Forneris G, Borca M, Pozzato M (2006) Do central venous catheters have advantages over arteriovenous fistulas or grafts? J Nephrol 19: 265–279

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Randolph AG, Cook DJ, Gonzales CA, Brun-Buisson C (1998) Tunneling short-term central venous catheters to prevent catheter-related infection: a meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials. Crit Care Med 26: 1452–1457

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Ravani P, Brunori G, Mandolfo S et al. (2004) Cardiovascular comorbidity and late referral impact arteriovenous fistula survival: a prospective multicenter study. J Am Soc Nephrol 15: 204–209

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Rayner HC, Besarab A, Brown WW et al. (2004) Vascular access results from the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS): performance against Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative (K/DOQI) Clinical Practice Guidelines. Am J Kidney Dis (Suppl 2) 44: 22–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Röhl L, Franz HE, Möhring K et al. (1968) Direct arteriovenous fistula for hemodialysis. Scand J Urol Nephrol 2: 191–195

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sands JJ (2007) Increasing av fistulae and decreasing dialysis catheters: Two aspects of improving patient outcomes. Blood Purif 25: 99–102

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Sands JJ, Miranda CL (1995) Prolongation of hemodialysis access survival with elective revision. Clin Nephrol 44: 329–333

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Saran R, Dykstra DM, Pisoni RL et al. (2004) Timing of first cannulation and vascular access failure in haemodialysis: An analysis of practice patterns at dialysis facilities in the DOPPS. Nephrol Dial Transplant 19: 2334–2340

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Schon D, Blume SW, Niebauer K et al. (2007) Increasing the use of arteriovenous fistula in hemodialysis: Economic benefits and economic barriers. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2: 268–276

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Scribner BH, Buri R, Caner JEZ et al. (1960) The treatment of chronic uremia by means of intermittent hemodialysis: A preliminary report. Transact Am Soc Artif Intern Organs 6: 114–122

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Soyer T, Lempinen M, Cooper P et al. (1972) A new venous prosthesis. Surgery 72: 864–872

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Sperling M, Kleinschmidt W, Wilhelm A et al. (1967) Die subkutane arteriovenöse Fistel zur intermittierenden Hämodialyse-Behandlung. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 92: 425–426

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. UK Renal Registry Report 2005: The National Dialysis Access Survey – preliminary results. Chapter 6. UK Renal Registry Bristol UK 2005

  29. Loon M van, Mark W van der, Beukers N et al. (2007) Implementation of a vascular access quality programme improves vascular access care. Nephrol Dial Transplant 22: 1628–1632

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Widmer MK, Aregger F, Stauffer E et al. (2004) Intermediate outcome and risk factor assessment of bovine vascular heterografts used as av fistulas for hemodialysis access. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 27: 660–665

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Interessenkonflikt

Der korrespondierende Autor gibt an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M.K. Widmer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

von Allmen, R., Konner, K., Savolainen, H. et al. Shuntchirurgie in Europa und den USA. Gefässchirurgie 12, 367–373 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00772-007-0545-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00772-007-0545-9

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Navigation