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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | The journal of vascular access 2012-07, Vol.13 (3), p.279-285 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
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 > 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 > 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 > 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 |