Journal of Chest Surgery

  • 제42권4호
  • /
  • Pages.487-491
  • /
  • 2009
  • /
  • 2765-1606(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2765-1614(eISSN)
대한심장혈관흉부외과학회 (The Korean Society for Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery)
권호 표지

인조혈관 동정맥루 폐쇄의 치료에서 수술적 혈전제거술 및 재건술과 경피적 혈전제거술 및 혈관성형술의 비교연구

Comparative Analysis of Surgical Thrombectomy with Revision and Percutaneous Thrombectomy with Angioplasty for Treating Obstruction of a Dialysis Graft

  • 임재웅 (순천향대학교 의과대학 부천병원 흉부외과학교실) ;
  • 원용순 (순천향대학교 의과대학 부천병원 흉부외과학교실) ;
  • 김동현 (순천향대학교 의과대학 부천병원 흉부외과학교실) ;
  • 신화균 (순천향대학교 의과대학 부천병원 흉부외과학교실)
  • Lim, Jae-Woong (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Soonchunhyang University Bucheon Hospital, College of Medicine, Soonchunhyang University) ;
  • Won, Yong-Soon (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Soonchunhyang University Bucheon Hospital, College of Medicine, Soonchunhyang University) ;
  • Kim, Dong-Hyun (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Soonchunhyang University Bucheon Hospital, College of Medicine, Soonchunhyang University) ;
  • Shin, Hwa-Kyun (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Soonchunhyang University Bucheon Hospital, College of Medicine, Soonchunhyang University)
  • 발행 : 2009.08.05
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

배경: 인조혈관 동정맥루 폐쇄의 구조요법으로는 수술적 방법과 중재적 혈관내 치료법을 사용할 수 있다. 인조혈관 동정맥루를 재개통 시키는데 이 두가지 방법의 효율성을 후향적으로 분석하였다. 대상 및 방법: 2006년 1월부터 2007년 12월까지 수술적 혈전제거술 및 재건술(그룹 A)또는 경피적 혈전제거술 및 혈관성형술(그룹 B)을 시행받은 41명의 환자를 대상으로 환자의 임상적 특성, 협착부의 위치, 시술 후 일차 개통률을 비교하였다. 결과: 총 41명의 환자 중, 21명의 환자는 수술적 혈전제거술 및 재건술을 받았으며, 20명의 환자는 경피적 혈전제거술 및 혈관성형 술을 받았다. 두 군간에 환자의 임상적 특성은 차이가 없었다. 두 군 모두에서 정맥 문합부 협착이 인조혈관 동정맥루 폐쇄의 가장 흔한 원인이었다. 시술 후 일차 개통률은 6개월 누적 개통률이 그룹 A 90.5%, 그룹 B 55%였으며, 1년 누적 개통률은 그룹 A 38.1%, 그룹 B 20.0%로 그룹 A가 통계적으로 의미 있게 높은 개통률을 보였다(p=0.034). 결론: 본 연구에서는 조기에 적절한 수술적 재건술을 시행함으로써 인조혈관 동정맥루의 구제가 가능하였고 비교적 우수한 개통률을 얻을 수 있었다. 인조혈관 동정맥루의 폐쇄가 발생하였을 경우 일차적인 치료방법으로서 수술적 재건술은 효과적인 방법이라고 생각된다.

Background: Salvaging prosthetic arteriovenous grafts can be performed using surgical or endovascular techniques. We conducted a retrospective analysis to compare the efficacy of these two methods for restoring dialysis graft function. Material and Method: We studied 41 patients who had received surgical thrombectomy with revision (Group A) or percutaneous thrombectomy with angioplasty (Group B) from January 2006 to December 2007. We compared them according to the patient characteristics and the location of stenotic lesions, and we analyzed the post-intervention primary patency rates. Result: 21 patients underwent surgery and 20 patients underwent percutaneous balloon angioplasty. There were no significant differences of the patients' characteristics between the two groups. Venous anastomotic stenosis was the most common cause of graft thrombosis in both groups. In Group A, 90.5% of the grafts remained functional at 6 months and 38.1% remained functional at 12 months. In Group B, 55.0% of the grafts were functional at 6 months and 20.0% of the grafts were functional at 12 months. The post-intervention primary patency rate was significantly better in Group A (p=0.034). Conclusion: Surgical treatment resulted in significantly longer post-intervention primary patency in this study, and this supports its use as the primary method of management for most patients in whom dialysis graft obstruction develops.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Lumsden AB. Management of thrombosed dialysis access. In: Rutherford RB. Vascular surgery. 6th ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Company. 2005;1685
  2. U.S. Renal Data System: X. The cost effectiveness of alternative types of vascular access and the economic cost of ESRD. Am J Kidney Dis 1995;26:140-156 https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-6386(95)90089-6
  3. Roy-Chaudhury P, Kelly BS, Miller MA, et al. Venous neointimal hyperplasia in polytetrafluoroethylene dialysis grafts. Kidney Int 2001;59:2325-2334 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1755.2001.00750.x
  4. Swedberg SH, Brown BG, Sigley R, Wight TN, Gordon D, Nicholls SC. Intimal fibromuscular hyperplasia at the venous anastomosis of PTFE grafts in hemodialysis patients. Clinical, immunocytochemical, light and electron microscopic assessment. Circulation 1989;80:1726-1736 https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.80.6.1726
  5. Dougherty MJ, Calligaro KD, Schindler N, Raviola CA, Ntoso A. Endovascular versus surgical treatment for thrombosed hemodialysis grafts: a prospective, randomized study. J Vasc Surg 1999;30:1016-1023 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0741-5214(99)70039-X
  6. Sidawy AN, Gray R, Besarab A, et al. Recommended standards for reports dealing with arteriovenous hemodialysis accesses. J Vasc Surg 2002;35:603-610 https://doi.org/10.1067/mva.2002.122025
  7. ESRD Registry Committee. Korean Society of Nephrology Current Renal Replacement Therapy in Korea - Insan Memorial Dialysis Registry 2006 -. J Korean Soc Nephrol 2007;27:459-481
  8. Schwab SJ, Harrington JT, Singh A, et al. Vascular access for hemodialysis. Kidney Int 1999;55:2078-2090 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1755.1999.00409.x
  9. Vascular Access 2006 Work Group. Clinical Practice Guidelines for Vascular Acess. Am J Kidney Dis 2006;48:S176- S247 https://doi.org/10.1053/j.ajkd.2006.04.029
  10. Beathard GA. Thrombolysis versus surgery for the treatment of thrombosed dialysis access grafts. J Am Soc Nephrol 1995;6:1619-1624
  11. Turmel-Rodirigues L, Pengloan J, Blanchier D, et al. Insufficient dialysis shunts: Improved long-term patency rates with close hemodynamic monitoring, repeated percutaneous balloon angioplasty, and stent placement. Radiology 1993; 187:273-278
  12. Green L, Lee D, Kucey D. A metaanalysis comparing surgical thrombectomy, mechanical thrombectomy, and pharmacomechanical thrombolysis for thrombosed dialysis grafts. J Vasc Surg 2002;36:939-945 https://doi.org/10.1067/mva.2002.127524
  13. Marston W, Criado E, Jaques P, et al. Prospective randomized comparison of surgical versus endovascular management of thrombosed dialysis access grafts. J Vasc Surg 1997;26:373-381 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0741-5214(97)70030-2
  14. Schwartz C, McBrayer C, Sloan J, et al. Thrombosed dialysis grafts: comparision of treatment with transluminal angioplasty and surgical revision. Radiology 1995;194:337-341 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.194.2.7824708
  15. Trerotola SO, Stavropoulos SW, Shlansky-Goldberg R, et al. Hemodialysis-related venous stenosis: treatment with ultrahigh- pressure angioplasty balloons. Radiology 2004;231:259-262 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2311030949
  16. Singer-Jordan J, Papura S. Cutting balloon angioplasty for primary treatment of hemodialysis fistula venous stenoses: preliminary results. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2005;16:25-29 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.RVI.0000144868.50440.8A
  17. Wu CC, Lin MC, Pu SY, Tsai KC, Wen SC. Comparison of cutting balloon versus high-pressure balloon angioplasty for resistant venous stenoses of native hemodialysis fistulas. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2008;19:877-883 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2008.02.016