Review of transposed basilic vein access for hemodialysis

There is ongoing debate about the use of transposed basilic vein (TBV) fistula and the choice between it and prosthetic arteriovenous graft (AVG). This paper reviews the available literature relating to TBV fistula in terms of surgical technique, patency rates, complications, access survival and compares it with prosthetic AVG for hemodialysis (HD).

Review of English language publications on TBV during the last two decades.

The rate of fistula maturation was higher in the two-stage group, although the mean diameter of the basilic vein was smaller. Dialysis via central venous catheters at time of surgery was most prevalent in patients undergoing staged procedures—14% in one-stage TBV and 43% in two-stage TBV. Several authors report 1-year cumulative patency rate of 47% to 96% and 59% to 90% for TBV and AVG, respectively. TBV provides a more cost-effective option and should be considered the next choice when primary autogenous fistulae are not possible, whereas AVGs are easier to create, can be punctured earlier and have a greater reintervention rate if the access fails.

This analysis shows that TBV has several advantages over AVG and provides a valuable access for HD but raises the need for a comparative trial between TBV and the newer generation AVGs. There is no clear superiority of the one-stage over the two-stage procedure.