Indications for Vascular Grafts as Hemodialysis Access: Consensus from Experience in Italy

Introduction In Italy, the use of arteriovenous grafts (AVG) is limited (1–5 %) due to different approaches to vascular access (VA) management as compared to other Countries, where guidelines (which may not apply to the Italian setting) have been produced. Therefore, the Study Group (GdS) on VA of t...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The journal of vascular access 2012-07, Vol.13 (3), p.279-285
Hauptverfasser: Tazza, Luigi, Galli, Franco, Mandolfo, Salvatore, Forneris, Giacomo, Di Dio, Michele, Palumbo, Roberto, Gallieni, Maurizio, Bonforte, Giuseppe, Carnabuci, Antonio, Cavatorta, Fosco, Aloisi, Mauro, Carbonari, Luciano
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 285
container_issue 3
container_start_page 279
container_title The journal of vascular access
container_volume 13
creator Tazza, Luigi
Galli, Franco
Mandolfo, Salvatore
Forneris, Giacomo
Di Dio, Michele
Palumbo, Roberto
Gallieni, Maurizio
Bonforte, Giuseppe
Carnabuci, Antonio
Cavatorta, Fosco
Aloisi, Mauro
Carbonari, Luciano
description Introduction In Italy, the use of arteriovenous grafts (AVG) is limited (1–5 %) due to different approaches to vascular access (VA) management as compared to other Countries, where guidelines (which may not apply to the Italian setting) have been produced. Therefore, the Study Group (GdS) on VA of the Italian Society of Nephrology produced this position paper, providing a list of 8 recommendations built upon current guidelines. Methods The most controversial and innovative issues of existing guidelines have been summed up in 12 different statements. We selected 60 Italian dialysis graft experts, nephrologists and vascular surgeons (PP1SIN Study Investigators). They were asked to express their agreement/disagreement on each issue, thus creating a new method to share and exchange information. Results Most of them agreed (consensus > 90%) on specific criteria set to choose AVG over native AVF (nAVF) and tunnelled venous catheter (tVC) and on the necessary conditions to implant them. They did not fully agree on the use of AVG in obese patients, in patients at risk of developing ischemia, on the priority of AVG as an alternative to brachial-basilic fistula with vein transposition, and in case of a poorly organized setting regarding graft maintenance. Keeping in mind that the nAVF should be preferred whenever is feasible, AVGs are indicated when superficial veins are unavailable or to repair a nAVF (bridge graft). An AVG is an alternative to tVC if the expected patient survival is long enough to guarantee its clinical benefits.
doi_str_mv 10.5301/jva.5000056
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1081875120</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.5301_jva.5000056</sage_id><sourcerecordid>1081875120</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c322t-b9b3536dd01506cda7c55614ab340a9e0b0da06250fb3e325f635d2d7ac3d2343</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptkD1PwzAQhi0EoqUwsSOPSCjFH7GTsKGqtJUqsQADS-TYDnKVxMWXIPrvMWqBhVvuhufe0z0IXVIyFZzQ282HmgoSS8gjNKYZSxNJODuOM2VFkrEiH6EzgA0hrBA0PUUjxjjJUpmP0euqM06r3vkOcO0DflGgh0YFvAiq7gErwEvbeuNUswMH-F5rC3CHZ3HBdjDEreBbPP_c2uBspy12HV71kT5HJ7VqwF4c-gQ9P8yfZstk_bhYze7XieaM9UlVVFxwaQyhgkhtVKaFkDRVFU-JKiypiFFEMkHqilvORC25MMxkSnPDeMon6Hqfuw3-fbDQl60DbZtGddYPUFKS0zwTlJGI3uxRHTxAsHW5Da5VYReh8ltmGWWWB5mRvjoED1VrzS_7Y-_vMqg3W278ELr46L9ZX_9yfCE</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1081875120</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Indications for Vascular Grafts as Hemodialysis Access: Consensus from Experience in Italy</title><source>SAGE Complete A-Z List</source><source>MEDLINE</source><creator>Tazza, Luigi ; Galli, Franco ; Mandolfo, Salvatore ; Forneris, Giacomo ; Di Dio, Michele ; Palumbo, Roberto ; Gallieni, Maurizio ; Bonforte, Giuseppe ; Carnabuci, Antonio ; Cavatorta, Fosco ; Aloisi, Mauro ; Carbonari, Luciano</creator><creatorcontrib>Tazza, Luigi ; Galli, Franco ; Mandolfo, Salvatore ; Forneris, Giacomo ; Di Dio, Michele ; Palumbo, Roberto ; Gallieni, Maurizio ; Bonforte, Giuseppe ; Carnabuci, Antonio ; Cavatorta, Fosco ; Aloisi, Mauro ; Carbonari, Luciano ; Study Group on Vascular Access of the Italian Society of Nephrology ; Study Investigators PP1 SIN</creatorcontrib><description>Introduction In Italy, the use of arteriovenous grafts (AVG) is limited (1–5 %) due to different approaches to vascular access (VA) management as compared to other Countries, where guidelines (which may not apply to the Italian setting) have been produced. Therefore, the Study Group (GdS) on VA of the Italian Society of Nephrology produced this position paper, providing a list of 8 recommendations built upon current guidelines. Methods The most controversial and innovative issues of existing guidelines have been summed up in 12 different statements. We selected 60 Italian dialysis graft experts, nephrologists and vascular surgeons (PP1SIN Study Investigators). They were asked to express their agreement/disagreement on each issue, thus creating a new method to share and exchange information. Results Most of them agreed (consensus &gt; 90%) on specific criteria set to choose AVG over native AVF (nAVF) and tunnelled venous catheter (tVC) and on the necessary conditions to implant them. They did not fully agree on the use of AVG in obese patients, in patients at risk of developing ischemia, on the priority of AVG as an alternative to brachial-basilic fistula with vein transposition, and in case of a poorly organized setting regarding graft maintenance. Keeping in mind that the nAVF should be preferred whenever is feasible, AVGs are indicated when superficial veins are unavailable or to repair a nAVF (bridge graft). An AVG is an alternative to tVC if the expected patient survival is long enough to guarantee its clinical benefits.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1129-7298</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1724-6032</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.5301/jva.5000056</identifier><identifier>PMID: 22307468</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London, England: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Arteriovenous Shunt, Surgical - adverse effects ; Arteriovenous Shunt, Surgical - instrumentation ; Arteriovenous Shunt, Surgical - standards ; Blood Vessel Prosthesis - standards ; Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation - adverse effects ; Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation - instrumentation ; Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation - standards ; Consensus ; Humans ; Italy ; Patient Selection ; Prosthesis Design ; Renal Dialysis - standards ; Risk Assessment ; Risk Factors ; Treatment Outcome</subject><ispartof>The journal of vascular access, 2012-07, Vol.13 (3), p.279-285</ispartof><rights>2012 SAGE Publications</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c322t-b9b3536dd01506cda7c55614ab340a9e0b0da06250fb3e325f635d2d7ac3d2343</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c322t-b9b3536dd01506cda7c55614ab340a9e0b0da06250fb3e325f635d2d7ac3d2343</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.5301/jva.5000056$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.5301/jva.5000056$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,21798,27901,27902,43597,43598</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22307468$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Tazza, Luigi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Galli, Franco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mandolfo, Salvatore</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Forneris, Giacomo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Di Dio, Michele</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Palumbo, Roberto</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gallieni, Maurizio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bonforte, Giuseppe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carnabuci, Antonio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cavatorta, Fosco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aloisi, Mauro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carbonari, Luciano</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Study Group on Vascular Access of the Italian Society of Nephrology</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Study Investigators PP1 SIN</creatorcontrib><title>Indications for Vascular Grafts as Hemodialysis Access: Consensus from Experience in Italy</title><title>The journal of vascular access</title><addtitle>J Vasc Access</addtitle><description>Introduction In Italy, the use of arteriovenous grafts (AVG) is limited (1–5 %) due to different approaches to vascular access (VA) management as compared to other Countries, where guidelines (which may not apply to the Italian setting) have been produced. Therefore, the Study Group (GdS) on VA of the Italian Society of Nephrology produced this position paper, providing a list of 8 recommendations built upon current guidelines. Methods The most controversial and innovative issues of existing guidelines have been summed up in 12 different statements. We selected 60 Italian dialysis graft experts, nephrologists and vascular surgeons (PP1SIN Study Investigators). They were asked to express their agreement/disagreement on each issue, thus creating a new method to share and exchange information. Results Most of them agreed (consensus &gt; 90%) on specific criteria set to choose AVG over native AVF (nAVF) and tunnelled venous catheter (tVC) and on the necessary conditions to implant them. They did not fully agree on the use of AVG in obese patients, in patients at risk of developing ischemia, on the priority of AVG as an alternative to brachial-basilic fistula with vein transposition, and in case of a poorly organized setting regarding graft maintenance. Keeping in mind that the nAVF should be preferred whenever is feasible, AVGs are indicated when superficial veins are unavailable or to repair a nAVF (bridge graft). An AVG is an alternative to tVC if the expected patient survival is long enough to guarantee its clinical benefits.</description><subject>Arteriovenous Shunt, Surgical - adverse effects</subject><subject>Arteriovenous Shunt, Surgical - instrumentation</subject><subject>Arteriovenous Shunt, Surgical - standards</subject><subject>Blood Vessel Prosthesis - standards</subject><subject>Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation - adverse effects</subject><subject>Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation - instrumentation</subject><subject>Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation - standards</subject><subject>Consensus</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Italy</subject><subject>Patient Selection</subject><subject>Prosthesis Design</subject><subject>Renal Dialysis - standards</subject><subject>Risk Assessment</subject><subject>Risk Factors</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><issn>1129-7298</issn><issn>1724-6032</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNptkD1PwzAQhi0EoqUwsSOPSCjFH7GTsKGqtJUqsQADS-TYDnKVxMWXIPrvMWqBhVvuhufe0z0IXVIyFZzQ282HmgoSS8gjNKYZSxNJODuOM2VFkrEiH6EzgA0hrBA0PUUjxjjJUpmP0euqM06r3vkOcO0DflGgh0YFvAiq7gErwEvbeuNUswMH-F5rC3CHZ3HBdjDEreBbPP_c2uBspy12HV71kT5HJ7VqwF4c-gQ9P8yfZstk_bhYze7XieaM9UlVVFxwaQyhgkhtVKaFkDRVFU-JKiypiFFEMkHqilvORC25MMxkSnPDeMon6Hqfuw3-fbDQl60DbZtGddYPUFKS0zwTlJGI3uxRHTxAsHW5Da5VYReh8ltmGWWWB5mRvjoED1VrzS_7Y-_vMqg3W278ELr46L9ZX_9yfCE</recordid><startdate>201207</startdate><enddate>201207</enddate><creator>Tazza, Luigi</creator><creator>Galli, Franco</creator><creator>Mandolfo, Salvatore</creator><creator>Forneris, Giacomo</creator><creator>Di Dio, Michele</creator><creator>Palumbo, Roberto</creator><creator>Gallieni, Maurizio</creator><creator>Bonforte, Giuseppe</creator><creator>Carnabuci, Antonio</creator><creator>Cavatorta, Fosco</creator><creator>Aloisi, Mauro</creator><creator>Carbonari, Luciano</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201207</creationdate><title>Indications for Vascular Grafts as Hemodialysis Access: Consensus from Experience in Italy</title><author>Tazza, Luigi ; Galli, Franco ; Mandolfo, Salvatore ; Forneris, Giacomo ; Di Dio, Michele ; Palumbo, Roberto ; Gallieni, Maurizio ; Bonforte, Giuseppe ; Carnabuci, Antonio ; Cavatorta, Fosco ; Aloisi, Mauro ; Carbonari, Luciano</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c322t-b9b3536dd01506cda7c55614ab340a9e0b0da06250fb3e325f635d2d7ac3d2343</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Arteriovenous Shunt, Surgical - adverse effects</topic><topic>Arteriovenous Shunt, Surgical - instrumentation</topic><topic>Arteriovenous Shunt, Surgical - standards</topic><topic>Blood Vessel Prosthesis - standards</topic><topic>Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation - adverse effects</topic><topic>Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation - instrumentation</topic><topic>Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation - standards</topic><topic>Consensus</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Italy</topic><topic>Patient Selection</topic><topic>Prosthesis Design</topic><topic>Renal Dialysis - standards</topic><topic>Risk Assessment</topic><topic>Risk Factors</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Tazza, Luigi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Galli, Franco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mandolfo, Salvatore</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Forneris, Giacomo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Di Dio, Michele</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Palumbo, Roberto</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gallieni, Maurizio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bonforte, Giuseppe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carnabuci, Antonio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cavatorta, Fosco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aloisi, Mauro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carbonari, Luciano</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Study Group on Vascular Access of the Italian Society of Nephrology</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Study Investigators PP1 SIN</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The journal of vascular access</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Tazza, Luigi</au><au>Galli, Franco</au><au>Mandolfo, Salvatore</au><au>Forneris, Giacomo</au><au>Di Dio, Michele</au><au>Palumbo, Roberto</au><au>Gallieni, Maurizio</au><au>Bonforte, Giuseppe</au><au>Carnabuci, Antonio</au><au>Cavatorta, Fosco</au><au>Aloisi, Mauro</au><au>Carbonari, Luciano</au><aucorp>Study Group on Vascular Access of the Italian Society of Nephrology</aucorp><aucorp>Study Investigators PP1 SIN</aucorp><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Indications for Vascular Grafts as Hemodialysis Access: Consensus from Experience in Italy</atitle><jtitle>The journal of vascular access</jtitle><addtitle>J Vasc Access</addtitle><date>2012-07</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>13</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>279</spage><epage>285</epage><pages>279-285</pages><issn>1129-7298</issn><eissn>1724-6032</eissn><abstract>Introduction In Italy, the use of arteriovenous grafts (AVG) is limited (1–5 %) due to different approaches to vascular access (VA) management as compared to other Countries, where guidelines (which may not apply to the Italian setting) have been produced. Therefore, the Study Group (GdS) on VA of the Italian Society of Nephrology produced this position paper, providing a list of 8 recommendations built upon current guidelines. Methods The most controversial and innovative issues of existing guidelines have been summed up in 12 different statements. We selected 60 Italian dialysis graft experts, nephrologists and vascular surgeons (PP1SIN Study Investigators). They were asked to express their agreement/disagreement on each issue, thus creating a new method to share and exchange information. Results Most of them agreed (consensus &gt; 90%) on specific criteria set to choose AVG over native AVF (nAVF) and tunnelled venous catheter (tVC) and on the necessary conditions to implant them. They did not fully agree on the use of AVG in obese patients, in patients at risk of developing ischemia, on the priority of AVG as an alternative to brachial-basilic fistula with vein transposition, and in case of a poorly organized setting regarding graft maintenance. Keeping in mind that the nAVF should be preferred whenever is feasible, AVGs are indicated when superficial veins are unavailable or to repair a nAVF (bridge graft). An AVG is an alternative to tVC if the expected patient survival is long enough to guarantee its clinical benefits.</abstract><cop>London, England</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><pmid>22307468</pmid><doi>10.5301/jva.5000056</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1129-7298
ispartof The journal of vascular access, 2012-07, Vol.13 (3), p.279-285
issn 1129-7298
1724-6032
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1081875120
source SAGE Complete A-Z List; MEDLINE
subjects Arteriovenous Shunt, Surgical - adverse effects
Arteriovenous Shunt, Surgical - instrumentation
Arteriovenous Shunt, Surgical - standards
Blood Vessel Prosthesis - standards
Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation - adverse effects
Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation - instrumentation
Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation - standards
Consensus
Humans
Italy
Patient Selection
Prosthesis Design
Renal Dialysis - standards
Risk Assessment
Risk Factors
Treatment Outcome
title Indications for Vascular Grafts as Hemodialysis Access: Consensus from Experience in Italy
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-02T02%3A48%3A09IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Indications%20for%20Vascular%20Grafts%20as%20Hemodialysis%20Access:%20Consensus%20from%20Experience%20in%20Italy&rft.jtitle=The%20journal%20of%20vascular%20access&rft.au=Tazza,%20Luigi&rft.aucorp=Study%20Group%20on%20Vascular%20Access%20of%20the%20Italian%20Society%20of%20Nephrology&rft.date=2012-07&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=279&rft.epage=285&rft.pages=279-285&rft.issn=1129-7298&rft.eissn=1724-6032&rft_id=info:doi/10.5301/jva.5000056&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1081875120%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1081875120&rft_id=info:pmid/22307468&rft_sage_id=10.5301_jva.5000056&rfr_iscdi=true