Arteriovenous fistula: end‐to‐end or end‐to side anastomosis?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the present study was to compare the end-to-end (ETEa) with the end-to-side (ETSa) anastomosis in patients starting hemodialysis by means of radio-cephalic artero-venous fistulae (AVF). In our experience, we compared the results, as early failure (EF), late thrombosis (LT), stenosis, steal syndrome, and primary patency (PP), in 2 groups of hemodialysis incident patients that had been placed an AVF by means of ETEa or ETSa. The observation period lasted 24 months for each of the 2 types of AVF, starting from October 2005 to September 2007 for ETEa and from October 2007 to September 2009 for ETSa. One hundred forty patients were included in the present study. We have consecutively performed 99 AVF interventions at the wrist or at the third distal of the forearm, in 70 patients by means of ETEa and 82 AVF interventions in the same anatomical places in 70 patients by means of ETSa. The patients with ETEa had a mean age of 64.4 ± 14.6 years, males were 65.8% and the age dialysis at the end of observation was 10.4 ± 5.7 months. Those with ETSa had a mean age of 65.9 ± 15.5 years and the males were 62.9%, the age dialysis at the end of observation was 9.2 ± 5.5 months. The surgical team was composed by the same nephrologists. The statistical study was performed by means of the χ chi-square and Fisher's exact test. We have observed more late thrombosis (10% vs. 4.1%) and stenosis (21.4% vs. 2.7%) in ETEa than in ETSa. The number of early thrombosis was similar in the 2 types of anastomosis. The primary patency 1-year rate was better though not significantly in the ETS (80% vs. 85.7%) In our experience the ETSa provides, overall better results, both regarding the complications and primary survival than ETEa. For the benefits that seem to come from it, we believe, that a broad ETSa in the distal native AVF is preferable to the ETEa.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".