Does regional compared to local anaesthesia influence outcome after arteriovenous fistula creation?

Trials

Marc James Clancy²  John Kinsella³  Emma Aitken²  Rachel Joyce Kearns¹  Alan James Robert Macfarlane¹ 

[1] Department of Anaesthesia, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, 91 Wishart Street, Glasgow, Scotland G31 2HT, UK;Renal Surgery/Transplant Unit, Western Infirmary, Dumbarton Road, Glasgow Scotland G11 6NT, UK;Academic Unit of Anaesthesia Unit, Pain & Critical Care Medicine 4th Floor, Walton Building, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, 91 Wishart Street, Glasgow, Scotland G31 2HT, UK

关键词: Renal failure;    Nerve block;    Local;    Anaesthetic;    Flow;    Patency;    Fistula;   

Others  :  1093210
DOI  :  10.1186/1745-6215-14-263

 received in 2012-11-06, accepted in 2013-08-01,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

An arteriovenous fistula is the optimal form of vascular access in patients with end-stage renal failure requiring haemodialysis. Unfortunately, approximately one-third of fistulae fail at an early stage. Different anaesthetic techniques can influence factors associated with fistula success, such as intraoperative blood flow and venous diameter. A regional anaesthetic brachial plexus block results in vasodilatation and improved short- and long-term fistula flow compared to the infiltration of local anaesthetic alone. This, however, has not yet been shown in a large trial to influence long-term fistula patency, the ultimate clinical measure of success.

The aim of this study is to compare whether a regional anaesthetic block, compared to local anaesthetic infiltration, can improve long-term fistula patency.

Methods

This study is an observer-blinded, randomised controlled trial. Patients scheduled to undergo creation of either brachial or radial arteriovenous fistulae will receive a study information sheet, and consent will be obtained in keeping with the Declaration of Helsinki. Patients will be randomised to receive either: (i) an ultrasound guided brachial plexus block using lignocaine with adrenaline and levobupivicaine, or (ii) local anaesthetic infiltration with lignocaine and levobupivicaine.

A total of 126 patients will be recruited. The primary outcome is fistula primary patency at three months. Secondary outcomes include primary patency at 1 and 12 months, secondary patency and fistula flow at 1, 3 and 12 months, flow on first haemodialysis, procedural pain, patient satisfaction, change in cephalic vein diameter pre- and post-anaesthetic, change in radial or brachial artery flow pre- and post-anaesthetic, alteration of the surgical plan after anaesthesia as guided by vascular mapping with ultrasound, and fistula infection requiring antibiotics.

Conclusions

No large randomised controlled trial has examined the influence of brachial plexus block compared with local anaesthetic infiltration on the long-term patency of arteriovenous fistulae. If the performance of brachial plexus block increases fistulae patency, this will have significant clinical and financial benefits as the number of patients able to commence haemodialysis when planned should increase, and the number of “redo” or revision procedures should be reduced.

Trial registration

This study has been approved by the West of Scotland Research Ethics Committee 5 (reference no. 12/WS/0199) and is registered with the ClinicalTrials.gov database (reference no. NCT01706354).

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Macfarlane et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence: Clinical Guideline 73. Chronic Kidney Disease: Early Identification and Management of Chronic Kidney Disease in Adults in Primary and Secondary Care. 2008. http://www.nice.org.uk/Guidance/CG73 webcite
• [2]The Renal Association: Vasular Access for Haemodialysis. http://www.renal.org/Clinical/GuidelinesSection/VascularAccess webcite
• [3]Hoggard J, Saad T, Schon D, Vesely TM, Royer T, American Society of Diagnostic and Interventional Nephrology: Guidelines for venous access in patients with chronic kidney disease. A Position Statement from the American Society of Diagnostic and Interventional Nephrology, Clinical Practice Committee and the Association for Vascular Access. Semin Dial 2008, 21:186-191.
• [4]Rodriguez JA, Armadans L, Ferrer E, Olmos A, Codina S, Bartolome J, Borrellas J, Piera L: The function of permanent vascular access. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2000, 15:402-408.
• [5]Wong V, Ward R, Taylor J, Selvakumar S, How TV, Bakran A: Factors associated with early failure of arteriovenous fistulae for haemodialysis access. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 1996, 12:207-213.
• [6]Malinzak EB, Gan TJ: Regional anesthesia for vascular access surgery. Anesth Analg 2009, 109:976-980.
• [7]Howell SJ, Sear YM, Yeates D, Goldacre M, Sear JW, Foëx P: Risk factors for cardiovascular death after elective surgery under general anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth 1998, 80:14-19.
• [8]Lee TH, Marcantonio ER, Mangione CM, Thomas EJ, Polanczyk CA, Cook EF, Sugarbaker DJ, Donaldson MC, Poss R, Ho KK, Ludwig LE, Pedan A, Goldman L: Derivation and prospective validation of a simple index for prediction of cardiac risk of major noncardiac surgery. Circulation 1999, 100:1043-1049.
• [9]Shemesh D, Olsha O, Orkin D, Raveh D, Goldin I, Reichenstein Y, Zigelman C: Sympathectomy-like effects of brachial plexus block in arteriovenous access surgery. Ultrasound Med Biol 2006, 32:817-822.
• [10]Mouquet C, Bitker MO, Bailliart O, Rottembourg J, Clergue F, Montejo LS, MArtineaud JP, Viars P: Anesthesia for creation of a forearm fistula in patients with endstage renal failure. Anesthesiology 1989, 70:909-914.
• [11]Konner K, Nonnast-Daniel B, Ritz E: The arteriovenous fistula. J Am Soc Nephrol 2003, 14:1669-1680.
• [12]Shemesh D, Zigelman C, Olsha O, Alberton J, Shapira J, Abramowitz H: Primary forearm arteriovenous fistula for hemodialysis access–an integrated approach to improve outcomes. Cardiovasc Surg 2003, 11:35-41.
• [13]Laskowski IA, Muhs B, Rockman CR, Adelman MA, Ranson M, Cayne NS, Leivent JA, Maldonado TS: Regional nerve block allows for optimization of planning in the creation of arteriovenous access for hemodialysis by improving superficial venous dilatation. Ann Vasc Surg 2007, 21:730-733.
• [14]Sahin L, Gul R, Mizrak A, Deniz H, Sahin M, Koruk S, Cesur M, Goksu S: Ultrasound-guided infraclavicular brachial plexus block enhances postoperative blood flow in arteriovenous fistulas. J Vasc Surg 2011, 54:749-753.
• [15]Dolan J, Williams A, Murney E, Smith M, Kenny GN: Ultrasound guided fascia iliaca block: a comparison with the loss of resistance technique. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2008, 33:526-531.
• [16]Kearns RJ, Macfarlane AJ, Anderson KJ, Kinsella J: Intrathecal opioid versus ultrasound guided fascia iliaca plane block for analgesia after primary hip arthroplasty: study protocol for a randomised, blinded, noninferiority controlled trial. Trials 2011, 12:51. BioMed Central Full Text
• [17]Macfarlane AJ, Prasad GA, Chan VW, Brull R: Does regional anaesthesia improve outcome after total hip arthroplasty? A systematic review. Br J Anaesth 2009, 103:335-345.
• [18]Macfarlane AJ, Brull R: Eight ball, corner pocket ultrasound guided supraclavicular block: avoiding a scratch. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2008, 33:502-503.
• [19]Wiese P, Nonnast-Daniel B: Colour Doppler ultrasound in dialysis access. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2004, 19:1956-1963.
• [20]Soares LG, Brull R, Lai J, Chan VW: Eight ball, corner pocket: the optimal needle position for ultrasound-guided supraclavicular block. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2007, 32:94-95.
• [21]Rodriguez J, Taboada-Muniz M, Barcena M, Alvarez J: Median versus musculocutaneous nerve response with single-injection infraclavicular coracoid block. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2004, 29:534-538.
• [22]Deane C: Ultrasound of haemodialysis access. In Vascular Ultrasound, How, Why and When. 3rd edition. Edited by Thrush A, Hartshorne T. London: Churchill Livingstone; 2010:275-292.
• [23]Zaliunaite R, Kearns R, Clancy M, Macfarlane AJ: Does regional compared to local anaesthesia influence outcome after arteriovenous fistula creation? E-poster at ESRA Annual Congress Dresden. 2011. http://download.lww.com/wolterskluwer_vitalstream_com/PermaLink/AAP/A/AAP_36_7_2011_09_06_DAVIS_200526_SDC1.pdf webcite
• [24]Brull R, McCartney CJ, Chan VW, El Beheiry H: Neurological complications after regional anesthesia: contemporary estimates of risk. Anesth Analg 2007, 104:965-974.
• [25]Barrington MJ, Watts SA, Gledhill SR, Thomas RD, Said SA, Snyder GL, Tay VS, Jamrozik K: Preliminary results of the Australasian Regional Anesthesia Collaboration. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2009, 34:534-541.
• [26]Macfarlane AJ, Brull R: Needle to nerve proximity: what do the animal studies tell us? Reg Anesth Pain Med 2011, 36:290-302.
• [27]Liu SS, Ngeow JE, Yadeau JT: Ultrasound guided regional anesthesia and analgesia: a qualitative systematic review. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2009, 34:47-59.
• [28]Abrahams MS, Aziz MF, Fu RF, Horn JL: Ultrasound guidance compared with electrical neurostimulation for peripheral nerve block: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Br J Anaesth 2009, 102:408-417.
• [29]Neal JM, Wedel DJ: Ultrasound guidance and peripheral nerve injury: is our vision as sharp as we think? Reg Anesth Pain Med 2010, 35:335-337.
• [30]Lee LA, Posner KL, Cheney FW, Caplan RA, Domino KB: Complications associated with eye blocks and peripheral nerve blocks: an American Society of Anesthesiologists closed claims analysis. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2008, 33:416-422.