Brachial artery transposition versus catheters as tertiary vascular access for maintenance hemodialysis: a single-center retrospective study

Some hemodialysis patients are not suitable for creation of an arteriovenous fistula (AVF) or arteriovenous graft (AVG). However, they can receive a tunneled cuffed central venous catheter (tcCVC), but this carries risks of infection and mortality. We aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of brachial artery transposition (BAT) versus those of tcCVC. This retrospective study evaluated hemodialysis patients who underwent BAT or tcCVC placement because of severe heart failure, hand ischemia, central venous stenosis or occlusion, inadequate vessels for creating standard arteriovenous access, or limited life expectancy. The primary outcome was whole access circuit patency. Thirty-eight patients who underwent BAT and 25 who underwent tcCVC placement were included. One-year patency rates for the whole access circuit were 84.6% and 44.9% in the BAT and tcCVC groups, respectively. The BAT group was more likely to maintain patency (unadjusted hazard ratio: 0.17, 95% confidence interval: 0.05-0.60, p = 0.006). The two groups did not have significantly different overall survival (log-rank p = 0.146), although severe complications were less common in the BAT group (3% vs. 28%, p = 0.005). Relative to tcCVC placement, BAT is safe and effective with acceptable patency in hemodialysis patients not suitable for AVF or AVG creation.

Automated summary

This study evaluated the safety and effectiveness of brachial artery transposition (BAT) versus tunneled cuffed central venous catheter (tcCVC) in hemodialysis patients not suitable for arteriovenous fistula (AVF) or arteriovenous graft (AVG). The results showed that BAT had better whole access circuit patency and fewer severe complications compared to tcCVC placement.