Autogenous Saphenous Vein Grafts as Vascular Access for Hemodialysis

  • John P. Harris
  • James May
Part of the Topics in Renal Medicine book series (TIRM, volume 8)


Procedures for obtaining access to the circulation for hemodialysis should have two fundamental aims. These are long-term patency and freedom from complications. These aims can best be achieved by the use of an internal fistula and the use of autogenous material in its construction. Implicit in this strategy is the requirement to anticipate the need for hemodialysis and to preserve the veins of the upper extremities. There is general agreement that the radial artery to cephalic vein arteriovenous fistula described by Brescia and his colleagues [1] is the best method of obtaining access to the circulation. There is, however, a significant group of patients whose arteries or veins are unsuitable for the construction of such a fistula. It was for these patients that the autogenous saphenous vein graft arteriovenous fistula was introduced by May et al. [2]. There is also a group of patients who have been on dialysis for many years and a further group of patients who are returning to dialysis as renal grafts fail. Patients in these two categories are frequently devoid of native veins suitable for an internal fistula in the upper extremity.


Brachial Artery Saphenous Vein Vein Graft Patency Rate Vascular Access 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Brescia MJ, Cimino JE, Appel K, Hurwich BJ: Chronic haemodialysis using venipuncture and a surgically created arteriovenous fistula. N Engl J Med 275:1089, 1966.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    May J, Tiller D, Johnson J, Stewart J, Sheil AGR: Saphenous vein arteriovenous fistula in regular dialysis treatment. N Engl J Med 280:770, 1969.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Haimov M, Burrows L, Baez A, Neff M, Slifkin R: Alternatives for vascular access for haemodialysis: Experience with autogenous saphenous vein autografts and bovine heterografts. Surgery 75:447–452, 1974.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Valenta J, Bilek J, Opatrny K: Autogenous saphenous vein graft as a secondary vascular access for haemodialysis. Dial Transplant 14:567–571, 1985.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    May J, Harris J, Fletcher J: Long term results of saphenous vein graft arteriovenous fistulas. Am J Surg 140:387–390, 1980.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Weber M, Kuhn FP, Quintes W, Keidl E, Kohler H: Sonography of arteriovenous fistulae in haemodialysis patients. Clin Nephrol 22:258–261, 1984.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lornoy W, Becaus I, Gillardin JP: Autogenous saphenous vein AV fistulas for haemodialysis: Eight years experience with thirty patients. Proc Eur Dial Transplant Assoc 19:227–233, 1983.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    May J, Harris J, Patrick W: Polytetrafluoroethyene (PTFE) grafts for haemodialysis: Patency and complications compared with those or saphenous vein grafts. Aust NZ J Surg 49:639–642, 1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • John P. Harris
  • James May

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations