Upper arm XXXX grafts for dialysis access. Analysis of two different graft sizes: 6 mm and 6-8 mm.

@entity1 @entity736 @entity3526 @entity6
The purpose of this retrospective study was to analyze 2 sizes of expanded @entity736 ( @entity736 ) upper arm grafts for dialysis: 8 millimeters, tapered to 6 mm at the arterial side, and 6 millimeters. All upper arm PTFE grafts (Gore-Tex(R)) were performed between January 1981 and April 1997. @entity1 characteristics, complication rate, and patency rates were compared for both kind of grafts. Five hundred and seven PTFE grafts were analyzed (183 6-mm grafts and 324 6- to 8-mm grafts). Early failure was found in 5 grafts (2.7%) in 6-mm grafts, and in 5 grafts (1.5%) in 8-mm grafts (not significant). @entity3526 was found in 1 @entity1 (0.5%) of the 6-mm group, and in 11 (3.4%) of the 8-mm grafts (p=0.085). The rate of late complications requiring surgical repair was 0.56 episode per graft-year in the 6-mm grafts group, and 0.33 in the 8-mm grafts (p<0.001). Primary patency rates of 6-mm grafts were 72%, 33%, and 19% at 1, 3, and 5 years; and secondary patency rates were 86%, 68%, 56%, and 44% at 1, 3, 5, and 6 years, respectively. In the 8-mm grafts group, primary patency rates were 77%, 52%, and 39% at 1, 3, and 5 years; and secondary patency rates were 92%, 84%, 73%, and 66% at 1, 3, 5, and 6 years, respectively. Comparison of patency rates of 6-mm and 8-mm grafts were statistically significant (p<0.001) for both primary and secondary curves. However, secondary survival curves were similar for both kind of grafts in a subpopulation of @entity6 @entity1 . The authors conclude that the 8-mm graft, tapered to 6 mm at the arterial side, is a dialysis graft with fewer complications and a better patency rate than grafts of 6 mm placed in the same anatomical position, at least in a population of nondiabetic @entity1 . @entity3526 was observed in some cases of @entity6 and older @entity1 with a large-bore graft. Thus, this kind of prosthesis should be avoided in this population. On the other hand, this is not a prospective, randomized study made with any intention for comparison. Therefore, the aforementioned conclusions must be cautiously considered.
