4.5 Review

Effect of buttonhole cannulation versus rope-ladder cannulation in hemodialysis patients with vascular access: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized/clinical controlled trials

期刊

MEDICINE
卷 101, 期 29, 页码 -

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000029597

关键词

aneurysm; buttonhole cannulation; hematoma; meta-analysis; rope ladder cannulation; stenosis

资金

  1. Taiwan Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) [MOST 108-2410-H-255-003]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This systematic review and meta-analysis found that buttonhole (BH) cannulation significantly reduces the risk of aneurysm formation, stenosis, thrombosis formation, and hematoma compared to rope ladder (RL) cannulation for arteriovenous fistula (AVF) in hemodialysis patients. There were no significant differences in AVF infection between BH and RL cannulation. BH cannulation should be recommended as a routine procedure for hemodialysis, but staff knowledge and skills should be strengthened to reduce the risk of AVF infection.
Background: Safe and effective arteriovenous fistula (AVF) puncture techniques must be used to reduce harm to hemodialysis patients. The relative benefits of buttonhole (BH) cannulation over those of rope ladder (RL) cannulation for AVF remain unclear and inconsistent. Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Literature searches were conducted in June 2020 in multiple scientific databases including Cochrane library, CINAHL, PubMed/ Medline, Airiti Library, National Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations in Taiwan, Google scholar, Embase, and ProQuest. We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and clinical controlled trials (CCTs) that explored the efficacy of BH cannulation in hemodialysis patients. These included reports published in either English or Chinese that enrolled adults aged 18 years or older who underwent hemodialysis using an autogenous AVF. Studies that showed poor design, such as use of a self-control group or no control group, were excluded from analysis. The critical appraisal skills program checklist for RCTs were used to assess the quality of the evidence and RevMan software were used to perform the meta-analysis. Results: Fifteen studies (11 RCTs and 4 CCTs) met the inclusion criteria and were used for the meta-analysis. Meta-analysis showed that BH cannulation significantly reduced aneurysm formation (RR = 0.18, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.1, 0.32]), stenosis (RR = 0.44, 95% CI [0.25, 0.77]), thrombosis formation (RR = 0.4, 95% CI [0.2, 0.8]), and hematoma (RR = 0.63, 95% CI [0.40, 0.99]) and showed no differences in AVR infection (<= 6 months, RR = 2.17, 95% CI [0.76, 6.23]; >6 months, RR = 2.7, 95% CI [0.92, 7.92]) compared to RL cannulation. Conclusions: Given the benefits of BH, this meta-analysis found that BH cannulation should be recommended as a routine procedure for hemodialysis but that hospitals and hemodialysis clinics should strengthen staff knowledge and skills of BH cannulation to reduce the risk of AVF infection.

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

4.5
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