3.8 Article

Have a Heart: Tie It Off - Update on Recommendations Regarding Vascular Access Ligation After Successful Renal Transplant

期刊

CURRENT TRANSPLANTATION REPORTS
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1007/s40472-023-00421-5

关键词

Arteriovenous fistula; High output cardiac failure; Arteriovenous fistula ligation; Arteriovenous fistula ligation after kidney transplant

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this review is to explore whether the complications and negative physiological effects of arteriovenous fistulas (AVF) in kidney transplant patients outweigh the benefits. Studies have shown that fistula ligation can decrease left ventricular mass and cardiac output, and improve symptoms of right heart failure. Current research is investigating the impact of AVF on quality of life and whether fistula flow can predict the benefits of ligation.
Purpose of Review Arteriovenous fistulas (AVF) are invaluable for patients undergoing hemodialysis (HD), but for patients with a functioning kidney transplant (KT), the complications and negative physiologic effects potentially outweigh the benefit. Following successful KT, surveillance of complications of HD access is limited and the true incidence is unknown. Recent Findings Multiple authors have demonstrated that fistula ligation results in decreased left ventricular mass and cardiac output without increased creatinine. Additional literature has shown improvement of symptoms of right heart failure. Current research is investigating the impact of AVF on quality of life and whether fistula flow predicts which patients will benefit from ligation. Summary Improved understanding of the cardiovascular effects of AVFs, and of which patients are at highest risk, will allow providers to make educated judgements about when to consider ligation. Assessment tools may provide valuable insights into post-transplant ligation plans. Transplant centers have strong multidisciplinary teams and so are uniquely situated to guide this decision-making.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据