Article received: go, c.E.(2020).Comparable patency of open and hybrid treatment of venous anastomotic lesions in thrombosed haemodialysis grafts.European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery, 897-903.Purpose: this study aimed to describe outcomes after hybrid intervention compared with open revision (patch venoplasty or jump bypass) of the va in thrombosed avgs.Method: retrospective cohort study.Consecutive patients with a thrombosed avg who underwent thrombectomy between january 2014 and july 2018.Conclusion: hybrid interventions for thrombosed avgs are not associated with worse patency at six and 12 months compared with open revision.Per the article adverse events included occlusion, bleeding, swelling, thrombosis and infection.
|
Article received: go, c.E.(2020).Comparable patency of open and hybrid treatment of venous anastomotic lesions in thrombosed haemodialysis grafts.European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery, 897-903.The subject article is a single-center retrospective cohort study of 97 consecutive patients with a thrombosed arteriovenous graft (avg) who underwent thrombectomy between (b)(6) 2014 and (b)(6) 2018.Arteriovenous graft failures are typically associated with venous anastomotic (va) stenosis.This study aimed to describe outcomes after hybrid intervention compared with open revision (patch venoplasty or jump bypass) of the va in thrombosed avgs.This complaint is based on information found within a article/literature review.There was no product that was available for evaluation, therefore a device evaluation could not be conducted and the complaint cannot be confirmed.The author of the article did not report any major adverse patient effects as result of this event.A device history record (dhr) review was unable to be performed as the device product part number and lot number was not provided within the article.Attempts to obtain the device lot information was conducted but unsuccessful.The hazardous situation/harm is addressed in the risk file and is operating within its risk profile.There was no evidence within the article that the device was the cause of the reported event.The complaint history review did not identify an adverse trend, therefore no escalation to capa process is required.Conclusion: the instructions for use clearly states that potential adverse reactions of flixene vascular graft include, but may be not limited to: thrombosis, formation of pseudo-aneurysm due to excessive, localized, multiple and/or large needle punctures, perigraft hematoma formation, perigraft seroma formation or ultrafiltration, excessive needle hole elongation, mechanical disruption, material separation, delamination or tearing of the graft material, suture line or host vessel which may result in extreme blood loss, loss of limb function, loss of limb or possible death.Considering study design, that results were comparable to other clinical publications, noting possible risks and complications that can occur as a result of use of flixene vascular graft and fact that hybrid interventions for thrombosed avgs are not associated with worse patency at six and 12 months compared with open revision, one can infer that the getinge¿s flixene vascular grafts performed as expected.H3 other text : not available for return.
|