A novel approach to autogenous hemodialysis access: paired brachial vein transposition in series.

Autogenous arteriovenous fistula (AVF) creation is the preferred method for long-term hemodialysis access. This report describes the novel use of paired brachial veins for the creation of an autogenous AVF in a patient without a traditional superficial venous conduit available. Application of this general concept might serve to expand the options for autogenous AVF creation.

Blockade of intercostobrachial nerve by an erector spinae plane block at T2 level: a case report.

BACKGROUND: The intercostobrachial nerve blockade is required, in addition to brachial plexus block, to anesthetize the entire upper arm. No studies have described the use of erector spinae plane (ESP) block for an intercostobrachial nerve block. CASE PRESENTATION: A 72-year-old man was scheduled to undergo left brachial vein transposition-arteriovenous fistula creation for hemodialysis access. An ultrasound-guided infraclavicular brachial plexus block was performed using a mixture of 0.5% levobupivacaine (12.5 ml) and 2% lidocaine (12.5 ml). An ESP block was implemented using 10 ml of the same local anesthetic at the T2 level. A pinprick test showed that the entire upper arm and lateral aspect of the left upper chest wall were anesthetized 20 min after the blocks. Surgery was successfully performed without the need for general anesthesia. CONCLUSIONS: In the present case, an ESP block performed at the T2 level provided sensory loss of the area innervated by the intercostobrachial nerve.

The outcomes of a novel two-stage proximal brachial artery to proximal basilic/brachial vein arteriovenous graft extension for dialysis access.

BACKGROUND: We describe a technique to mature a basilic/brachial vein in the mid-arm in preparation for a second stage loop proximal brachial artery to basilic/brachial vein arteriovenous graft (BBAVG). This can occur after a failed basilic/brachial vein transposition or a lack of adequate veins in the distal arm. This allows a mature vein to be used in an end-to-end configuration as an outflow to a BBAVG while preserving proximal vessels for the future. METHODS: This single-center retrospective study was performed from 2015 to 2021, including 104 AVG patients divided into three groups: (1) Patients who failed a basilic vein transposition and had an enlarged vein suitable for an AVG outflow; (2) Patients who had a small caliber basilic/brachial vein after the transposition, requiring a mid-arm brachial artery to brachial/basilic arteriovenous fistula (AVF) creation with a subsequent AVG extension; (3) and lastly, patients who had no distal arm veins available and required a primary brachial artery to basilic/brachial AVF with AVG extension. A survival analysis was performed looking at time to loss of primary and secondary patency, calculated with Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox regression models adjusted for covariates. RESULTS: The median follow-up time was 11 months (IQ = 11-30 months). The survival analysis showed 28% lost primary patency at a median time of 9 months, and 14% lost secondary patency at a median time of 61 months. Overall secondary patency of the vascular access measured at 12 months was 85.6%. Loss of primary (p = 0.008) and secondary patency (p = 0.017), as well as patency during the first 12 months (p = 0.036), were all significantly associated with increased age when adjusting for covariates. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the graft extension technique using a mature vein from a previous fistula can result in reliable and durable access. This is important for patients with limited access for hemodialysis, as the axillary vein is preserved for future use if needed.

Effectiveness of a flow confirmation study of a central venous port of the upper arm versus the chest wall in patients with suspected system-related mechanical complications.

BACKGROUND: If mechanical complications associated with a central venous port (CVP) system are suspected, evaluation with a flow confirmation study (FCS) using fluorescence fluoroscopy or digital subtraction angiography should be performed. Evaluations of mechanical complications related to CVP of the chest wall using FCS performed via the subclavian vein have been reported. However, the delayed complications of a CVP placed in the upper arm have not been sufficiently evaluated in a large population. We evaluated the effectiveness of FCS of CVPs implanted following percutaneous cannulation of the subclavian (chest wall group) or brachial (upper arm group) vein. METHODS: A CVP was implanted in patients with advanced cancer requiring chemotherapy. FCS was performed if there were complaints suggestive of CVP dysfunction when initiating chemotherapy. RESULTS: CVPs were placed in the brachial vein in 390 patients and in the subclavian vein in 800 patients. FCS was performed in 26/390 (6.7%) patients in the upper arm group and 40/800 (5.0%) patients in the chest wall group. The clinical characteristics of the patients were similar in both groups. The duration of CVP implantation until FCS was significantly shorter in the upper arm group (136 ± 96.6 vs. 284 ± 260, p = 0.022). After FCS, the incidence of CVP removal/reimplantation being deemed unnecessary was higher in the upper arm group (21/26 [80.8%] vs. 26/40 [65.0%], p = 0.27). In the upper arm group, no cases of catheter kinking or catheter-related injury were observed, and the incidence of temporary obstruction because of blood clots that could be continued using CVP was significantly higher than that in the chest wall group (10/26 [38.5%] vs. 4/40 [10.0%], p = 0.012). CONCLUSIONS: FCS was effective in evaluating CVP system-related mechanical complications and deciding whether removal and reimplantation were required in both groups.

Safety and feasibility of simultaneous left and right heart catheterization via single-arm arterial and venous access.

BACKGROUND: Catheterization via the radial artery has become the method of choice for evaluation of the coronary arteries; however in patients requiring simultaneous coronary and right heart catheterization upper extremity access is not commonly used. AIMS: In the present study we aimed to assess whether simultaneous left and right heart catheterization via the radial artery and antecubital vein might increase the vascular access site complications. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, 49 patients with congenital and valvular heart disease requiring both left and right heart catheterization were enrolled, and rates of vascular access complications, including radial artery obstruction (RAO), were compared to 49 subjects in the control group who underwent catheterization only via radial artery access. RESULTS: No major vascular complications occurred in the study population. Post-procedural radial artery obstruction was detected in 14 patients (28.5%) in the venous-radial artery group and 7 (14.2%) in the control group (P = 0.09). Age, sex, body mass index, wrist circumference, hemoglobin concentrations, and history of smoking, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and anticoagulant use did not affect the rate of radial pulse perseverance. However, shorter times of radial compression device removal were significantly related to lower rates of radial artery obstruction in both groups. CONCLUSION: Right and left heart catheterization via an upper-extremity route in patients with congenital and valvular heart disease is safe and practical with greater patient comfort and no serious vascular complications. A longer duration of radial compression is an important predictor of RAO, regardless of using additional upper-extremity venous access.

Forearm brachial artery to brachial vein looped arteriovenous grafts: A single center, single surgeon observational study.

BACKGROUND: Long-term hemodialysis (HD) treatment requires the establishment of a cannulatable vascular access (VA) point. While the arteriovenous fistula (AVF) is considered the gold standard, the arteriovenous graft (AVG) is a viable alternative especially in patients with poor superficial venous anatomy. Few studies have assessed the efficacy of the brachial-brachial arteriovenous graft (BB-AVG) for long-term HD access. By analyzing one surgeon's experience in creating, surveilling and maintaining BB-AVGs, this retrospective study aims to add to the body of literature in assessing patency outcomes of BB-AVGs. METHODS: We identified 57 BB-AVGs that met inclusion criteria and were created between October 6, 2005 and May 1, 2019 by a single surgeon in 54 patients. We analyzed primary failures, patency, complications and interventions. Patency rates were calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method. The incidence of complications and interventions were expressed as number of events per person-year. RESULTS: A total of 54 patients (median age of 65 years) were analyzed. Primary patency rates at 12, 24, and 36 months were 20.4% 7.4%, and 5.0%. Primary assisted patency rates at 12, 24, and 36 months were 46.7%, 33.5%, and 15.1%. The secondary patency rates at 12, 24, and 36 months were 81.8%, 63.8%, and 60.1%, respectively. The incidence of complications and interventions was 2.164 per person-year. Most complications and interventions were due to stenosis (1.202 per person-year) or thrombosis (0.802 per person-year). CONCLUSION: In patients with poor superficial veins, the brachial vein is a reasonable alternative to use as the venous outflow. However, in order to achieve acceptable patency rates, close monitoring of the VA, as well as aggressive treatment of complications within the brachial vein is necessary. Overall, the BB-AVG should be considered in patients who lack adequate superficial veins and require preservation of the more proximal veins.

Case report of superficial femoral artery and popliteal artery aneurysm repair using brachial vein.

BACKGROUND: Several veins have been well-recognized as acceptable conduits for infrainguinal bypass surgery when the ipsilateral greater saphenous vein is unavailable. However, there is a paucity of literature describing the brachial vein as an adequate alternative. In the absence of other viable autogenous conduits, we describe the use of a brachial vein as a successful alternative for lower extremity revascularization. METHODS: A 70-year-old man presented with a chief complaint of right calf pain. Duplex ultrasound imaging of his right lower extremity revealed right-sided 2.5 cm acutely thrombosed superficial femoral artery and popliteal artery aneurysms. The patient underwent a suction thrombectomy with tissue plasminogen activator using the Power Pulse feature and Solent catheter from the AngioJet® (Boston-Scientific, Marlborough, MA) system. To repair the thrombosed aneurysms, an open bypass was planned. Due to lack of viable alternative traditionally used venous conduits, a bypass was created using the patient's brachial vein. RESULTS: A bypass was created from the superficial femoral artery to the P2 segment of the popliteal artery using a non-reversed brachial vein with ligation of the side branches of the superficial femoral artery and popliteal artery aneurysm from within the sac lumen. Completion angiogram revealed runoff through the anterior tibial artery only. Follow-up imaging at three months demonstrated a patent brachial bypass. CONCLUSION: Brachial veins can be safely used as viable venous conduits for lower extremity bypass surgery and should therefore be considered as an alternative when more commonly used veins are unsuitable or unavailable. However, more research is needed to determine the potential opportunities and challenges this alternative may present.

Comparison between autogenous brachial-brachial upper-arm elevated direct arteriovenous fistulas and prosthetic brachial-antecubital indirect forearm arteriovenous grafts.

OBJECTIVES: The National Kidney Foundation Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative (NKF-KDOQI) guidelines recommend forearm arteriovenous grafts (AVGs) as an alternative procedure to transposed basilic vein fistulas for providing secondary access during hemodialysis. Recently, autogenous elevated brachial-brachial vein fistulas (BVE) have become increasingly popular. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of BVE and forearm loop AVG (AVG) for secondary access in hemodialysis. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients who had received a BVE or forearm AVG at a single center from January 2015 to April 2019. In total, 19 BVE were created via two-stage operations and two via a one-stage operation; 53 forearm AVG's were performed. RESULTS: The AVG group was twice as likely to suffer loss of primary patency compared with the BVE group (odds ratio [OR], 2.666; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.108-6.412; p = 0.029) per the multivariate analysis. The primary patency and primary assisted patency of the BVE group were superior those of the AVG group, except for secondary patency (p = 0.02, p = 0.07, p = 0.879, respectively). In subgroup analysis, there were no significant differences in primary, primary assisted, or secondary patency between AVG and BVE when brachial vein was used for AVG outflow. In addition, no significant differences were noted regarding the infection rate (12.5% vs 12.3%, p = 0.331, severity >0), postoperative bleeding rate (14.5% vs 3.5%, p = 0.191, severity >1), early thrombus rate (0.0% vs 10.5%, p = 0.122), and early failure rate (7% vs 4.8%, p = 0.591). CONCLUSIONS: The primary patency and primary assisted patency rates of BVE were significantly better than those observed in AVGs, but the complication rates were similar. The appropriate procedure to provide vascular access should be determined by the individual patient's condition and the surgical skill of the operating surgeon.

Mid-term results of tunneled brachial venous hemodialysis catheter placement: Our single-center experience with 21 patients.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to analyze the safety and efficacy of permanent hemodialysis catheter insertion via the brachial vein in unsuitable patients for catheter insertion from other vascular access sites. METHODS: A total of 21 patients (6 males, 18 females; mean age: 54.4±11.3 years; range, 48 to 77 years) who underwent permanent hemodialysis catheter insertion via the brachial vein between February 2019 and February 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. All patients underwent brachial venous tunneled catheter insertion under the ultrasound guidance and under local anesthesia. Transthoracic echocardiography was performed before and six months after catheter insertion. The primary patency rate of the catheter at six months of follow-up, potential associated complications of a permanent hemodialysis catheter including catheter thrombosis and catheter infections, and all-cause mortality rates were recorded. RESULTS: Catheter removal was required in eight patients (catheter thrombosis, n=5; catheter infection, n=2; and extensive hematoma, n=1). The catheters were patent in the remaining 13 (62%) patients at six months. Mortality occurred in one patient due to bacterial pneumonia. No life-threatening complications including hemothorax or pneumothorax and neurological injury was observed in any of the patients. CONCLUSION: Our study results show that brachial venous tunneled catheter placement for hemodialysis can be a safe and valid alternative to catheter insertion from the jugular or subclavian veins for vascular access in patients with end-stage renal disease.

A systematic review of the brachial vein arteriovenous fistulas as a viable option for haemodialysis access.

OBJECTIVES: International guidelines recommend the use of autogenous vascular access. Where suitable superficial veins are unavailable deeper veins may be used as an option. In most cases, basilic veins are used when cephalic veins are unavailable; arteriovenous fistulas using the brachial vein from the deep venous network are rare. Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to conduct a systematic review of the available literature evaluating the use of the brachial vein in arteriovenous fistulas. METHODS: Systematic literature search of electronic databases in accordance with PRISMA was conducted. The primary outcomes of this study were primary and secondary patency rates for brachial vein arteriovenous fistulas; the secondary outcomes were the rates of access thrombosis, steal syndrome, pseudo-aneurysm and infection. RESULTS: The 1-year primary, assisted, and secondary patency was recorded at (24%-77%), (45%-85%) and (45%-96%), respectively. The 2-year primary, assisted and secondary patency rate was recorded at (12%-46%), (19%-75%) and (19%-92%), respectively. However, the consistency regarding the reports and definitions used were highly variable. The incidence rate of infection, thrombosis and steal syndrome was 5% (0%-12%), 15.9% (9.5%-35%) and 3% (2%-6%), respectively. CONCLUSION: Available studies support the use of brachial veins as a reliable access option in patients with non-accessible superficial veins where an autologous option is required.

The role of surgery for assisted maturation after endovascular and percutaneous arteriovenous fistula creation.

Even in the best of circumstances, a significant number of patients will require adjunctive endovascular and/or surgical revision prior to achieving functional patency after endovascular or percutaneous AVF creation, at least within the United States. This rate appears to be higher after percutaneous AVF than after endovascular AVF, although because published reports of the former are mostly derived from American experience and those of the latter derived from experience outside the United States, it is unclear whether these differences are due to the technique itself or cultural and/or anatomic differences in dialysis access practices and patient populations. If arterial inflow is poor, this should be corrected first. When flow is adequate (perhaps 900 cc/min) but no single vein is cannulatable, a dominant suitable vein can be superficialized or transposed. If no suitable vein is dominant (most accurately assessed by using an intraoperative flowmeter), the best vein can be used, with or without occlusion of the other veins or reimplantation into the brachial artery. Finally, if the original anastomosis remains the sole supply to the cannulated vein, the original fistula has achieved assisted primary maturation (and assisted primary patency continues), while if a new arteriovenous anastomosis has been constructed, the original fistula has failed. We point out that for this reason as well as to best utilize the upper arm for later access, endovascular and percutaneous AVFs should be constructed and maintained within an atmosphere where both surgeons and non-surgeons work together on the overall access plan.

Percutaneous creation of proximal radio-radial arteriovenous hemodialysis fistula before secondary brachial vein elevation.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluate the creation of a percutaneous proximal radial artery-radial vein arteriovenous fistula with Ellipsys® instead of the usual first-stage brachial artery fistula prior to a second-stage brachial vein elevation, in patients with inadequate cephalic and basilic veins. METHODS: Single center study of eight patients (six males, mean = 54 years) who underwent a two-stage brachial vein elevation procedure between May 2017 and October 2019. Inclusion criteria were life expectancy > 6 months, patent brachial and proximal radial artery (>2 mm in diameter) absent/inadequate cephalic and basilic veins, existence of a brachial vein >3 mm in diameter, and in continuity with a proximal radial vein > 2 mm in diameter. RESULTS: Technical success was 100%. Four patients required angioplasty of a juxta-anastomotic stenosis, accounting for a 6-month primary and secondary patency rates were 68% and 100%, respectively. Access flow averaged 982 mL/min (range 768-1586) at final follow-up evaluation. There were no significant adverse events related to the procedures. All fistulae were elevated at 4-12 (mean: 8) weeks post creation and were successfully cannulated with two needles after healing was completed (2-4 weeks after elevation). No patients developed hand ischemia or arm edema. CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous creation of a proximal radial artery-radial vein fistula followed by brachial vein elevation is a safe and reliable option for autogenous access creation in patients with inadequate cephalic or basilic veins. Minimally invasive radial artery inflow and longer available length of the targeted brachial vein available for elevation are the main advantages in skilled hands.

Brachio-brachial arteriovenous fistula combined with superficialization of the brachial artery using a short skin incision for hemodialysis.

A brachio-brachial arteriovenous fistula with superficialization of the brachial vein and superficialization of the brachial artery are useful vascular access techniques for hemodialysis patients. However, both typically require a long skin incision from the antecubital fossa toward the axillary fossa. In addition, the brachio-brachial arteriovenous fistula in particular, which is created with not a one-stage but a two-stage procedure, requires a relatively long time of 2-3 months before it can be used for hemodialysis. Furthermore, superficialization of the brachial artery usually requires nonarterialized superficial veins for blood return. In cases where patients have no adequate superficial veins for creating an arteriovenous fistula, we have adopted a one-stage operative technique to create a brachio-brachial arteriovenous fistula with superficialization of not only the brachial vein but also the brachial artery using a short skin incision. This technique of a brachio-brachial arteriovenous fistula with superficialization of the brachial artery has several advantages over traditional approaches, including a minimally invasive procedure and early use for vascular access. To our knowledge, the presently described technique and the related data have not been previously reported in the English literature. We herein report the steps of this technique and the midterm follow-up outcomes.

A Successful CardioMEMS™ Implantation via Brachial Vein Access: A Case Report.

The CardioMEMS™ HF system (Abbott, Chicago, IL), a wireless pulmonary artery (PA) pressure sensor, was approved by the FDA after demonstration of reduction of heart failure hospitalization in New York Heart Association class III patients. These devices are implanted into the desired PA branch via either common femoral or jugular vein access. However, in some patients who cannot undergo the procedure via these routine access sites for various reasons, alternative access is needed. We describe, to our knowledge, the first case of successful CardioMEMS™ implantation via brachial vein access.

Brachial Vein Transposition with Consecutive Skin Incisions in a Hemodialysis Patient with Absence of Adequate Superficial Veins: A Case Report.

The creation of an arteriovenous fistula instead of a synthetic vascular graft is a smart decision in hemodialysis patients who do not have a suitable superficial vein. Basilic vein transposition (BVT) is a viable option in most cases, except in patients who do not have a proper basilic vein. In patients with inadequate superficial veins, another source of the autogenous vein is the brachial vein, a deep vein of the upper arm. Most surgeons choose a full medial arm incision to perform brachial vein exploration. We describe a patient in whom BVT was not possible and so brachial vein transposition using skip incisions was performed, with good results.

Transitional changes of acetylcholine spasm provocation test procedures.

Intracoronary acetylcholine (ACh) testing has become popular in the world as a spasm provocation test as well as an ergonovine test. Intracoronary ACh test based on the Japanese Circulation Society guidelines is necessary to insert a temporary pace maker (PM). We analyzed the ACh spasm provocation test procedures retrospectively. We performed 1829 ACh spasm provocation testing during 28 years. We investigated the procedural approach sites of artery and vein. Femoral artery and vein approach, brachial artery and femoral vein approach, brachial artery and vein approach, radial artery and brachial vein approach, radial artery and femoral vein approach were performed in 292 patients (16.0%), 498 patients (27.2%), 589 patients (32.2%), 252 patients (13.8%), and 175 patients (9.6%), respectively. We could perform the ACh testing by the femoral artery and brachial artery in all patients, while the success rate of radial artery approach was 97.1%. We could also insert the temporary PM by the brachial vein in 94.8% (841/887) of the study patients, whereas we could insert the temporary PM in all femoral vein approach [100% (965/965)]. We experienced the pulmonary embolism by the femoral artery and vein approach in two patients, while we also had the arterio-venous fistula necessary for surgical repair in two patients by the brachial artery and vein approach. Although there was no difference about the procedure-related major complications among the various procedures, we had no pulmonary embolism or arterio-venous fistula by the radial artery and brachial vein approach. Considering the disinfection with povidone iodine, procedural performance or procedure-related complications by the ACh testing, we recommend that radial artery and brachial vein approach is more comfortable method of the future ACh testing not only for patients but also for operators.

Brachial vein transposition: an alternative to hemodialysis arteriovenous graft.

BACKGROUND: There is currently a worldwide effort to increase the options for autogenous hemodialysis access. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate patency and complications of brachial vein transposition compared to other autogenous hemodialysis accesses. METHODS: A retrospective evaluation of 43 patients and 45 procedures. Patients who did not have adequate superficial veins according to duplex scanning were allocated to brachial vein transposition. The sample was thus divided in two groups, as follows: A: brachial vein transposition n=10 and B: other autogenous accesses n=35. RESULTS: There were no statistical differences between the two groups in terms of age diabetes, systemic arterial hypertension, dyslipidemias, arteriopathies, neoplasms, kidney disease stage, donor artery diameter, recipient vein diameter, systolic blood pressure in the operated limb, postoperative ischemia, hematoma, or infection. There were no statistical differences in terms of patency on day 7: A 80% vs. B 90% p=0.6, on day 30: A 80% vs. B 86% p=0.6, or on day 60: A 60% vs. B 80% p=0.22. There were statistical differences between the groups for number of previous fistulae A 1.0 ± 0.44 vs. B 0.6 ± 0.3 p = 0.04 and upper limb edema A: 20% x B 0% p = 0.04. A vein with diameter of less than 3 mm was associated with an increased risk of early occlusion (RR = 8 p = 0.0125). During the study period there were no procedures using grafts. CONCLUSIONS: Transposition of brachial vein is an alternative to arteriovenous graft.

The forearm arteriovenous graft between the brachial artery and the brachial vein as a reliable dialysis vascular access for patients with inadequate superficial veins.

OBJECTIVE: The arteriovenous fistula (AVF) is recommended as the preferred hemodialysis access. However, placing an AVF in all patients may result in poor access outcomes and increased central venous catheter (CVC) use because of increased comorbid conditions, age, and suboptimal vessels. In patients with inadequate superficial veins for AVFs, the use of the brachial veins for creation of forearm arteriovenous grafts (AVGs) has received limited attention. This retrospective study aimed to evaluate outcomes of forearm brachial-brachial AVGs (BB-AVGs) placed in patients with poor superficial veins. METHODS: We identified 111 BB-AVGs created in 111 consecutive patients, using standard-walled polytetrafluoroethylene grafts, between January 2010 and December 2015. After excluding 6 patients (non-dialysis initiation, missing information, and death within 1 month), we included 105 patients from 21 dialysis centers. We analyzed primary failures, time to cannulation, patency, complications, and revisions. Patency rates were calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method. The incidence of complications and revisions was expressed as number of events per person-year. RESULTS: A total of 105 patients (median age, 69 years) were followed up for a median time of 21.2 months (interquartile range, 9.2-36.5 months). Of the patients, 72.4% were on chronic hemodialysis and had previously undergone one or more access procedures. At the time of BB-AVG placement, prior accesses were 39 AVFs, 20 tunneled CVCs, and 17 AVGs. BB-AVG rates of primary failure and revision before cannulation were 7.6% and 5.7%, respectively. BB-AVGs were cannulated after a median time of 3.4 weeks (interquartile range, 2.8-4.1 weeks). Primary patency rates at 12, 24, and 36 months were 49.5%, 29.5%, and 19.5%. Secondary patency rates at 12, 24, and 36 months were 76.3%, 62.7%, and 54.6%. After cannulation, the incidence of complications and revisions was 1.054 and 0.649 per person-year, respectively. Most complications and interventions were due to thrombosis (0.527 per person-year) or stenosis (0.381 per person-year) and related interventions (0.490 per person-year). A minority of patients experienced AVG infections (0.052 per person-year), with only two requiring access removal. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with poor superficial veins, the forearm BB-AVG is a reliable access because of low access-related morbidity and considerable long-term access survival. BB-AVG placement has the advantage of preserving proximal vessels. In these patients, such an approach can delay both rapid exhaustion of vascular sites and early recourse to CVC permanent use.

Acetylcholine spasm provocation test by trans-radial artery and brachial vein approach.

BACKGROUND: Temporary pace maker is necessary because of transient block or bradycardia during the intracoronary acetylcholine spasm provocation tests based on the Japanese Circulation Society guidelines. OBJECTIVES: We examined the feasibility and safety of the acetylcholine spasm provocation test via the radial artery and brachial vein approach. METHODS: We tried to perform the acetylcholine spasm provocation tests in 252 patients via the radial artery and brachial vein approach procedures during 5 years. Acetylcholine was injected in incremental doses of 20/50/80 µg into the right coronary artery (RCA) and 20/50/100/200 µg into the left coronary artery (LCA). Back-up pacing rate was set at 40 beats/min. Positive spasm was defined as transient ≥90% luminal narrowing and ischemic electrocardiographic change or usual chest pain. RESULTS: The procedure success of radial artery and brachial vein access was 94.4% (238/252) and 93.3% (235/252), respectively. We performed 221 patients (87.7%) with acetylcholine tests by radial artery and brachial vein approach. We changed to the brachial approach due to the failures of radial artery access in 14 patients. We also changed to the femoral vein in 11 patients and internal jugular vein in two patients. Back-up pace maker rhythm was observed in 92.1% (232/252) of all study patients, while it was significantly higher in the RCA testing than that in the LCA tests (84.9% (191/225) vs. 52.2% (131/251), P < 0.001). No irreversible complication was found. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend the radial artery and brachial vein approach for safety and convenience when performing the acetylcholine spasm provocation tests.

Radiocephalic Fistula Recovery Using the Brachial Vein and Forearm Basilic Vein: A Case Series and Literature Review.

Vascular access dysfunction is a serious problem in dialysis units. Some patients have complex dysfunctions that are difficult to resolve. In this article, we report the case a of two patients with radiocephalic arteriovenous fistulae (RC-AVF) who had stenosis/occlusion of the forearm median vein and where we used the basilic vein of the forearm as a solution. We reviewed the use of this surgical solution in RC-AVF. Two male patients on hemodialysis exhibited stenosis/occlusion of the forearm median vein. The forearm basilic vein was isolated and rotated toward the forearm median vein in order to solve RC-AVF problems. One patient had fistula thrombosis 5 months after the procedure, while for the other patient, the fistula continues to work without problems. Literature describes only a few cases using the forearm basilic vein or the brachial vein for fistula recovery. This procedure increased the patency of fistulas. This approach has been proven to be a good solution for solving outflow problems using the superficial or deep veins, increasing fistula patency and avoiding the need to place a central venous catheter and all the related complications.