1. Comparison of Outcomes of Drug-Coated Balloons versus Plain Balloons in Secondary Interventions on Percutaneous Arteriovenous Fistulae.
- Author
-
Shahverdyan R, Lessne ML, and Mehta TI
- Subjects
- Humans, Female, Male, Middle Aged, Aged, Treatment Outcome, Retrospective Studies, Risk Factors, Time Factors, Renal Dialysis, Equipment Design, Multivariate Analysis, Recurrence, Proportional Hazards Models, Cardiovascular Agents administration & dosage, Cardiovascular Agents adverse effects, Vascular Access Devices, Retreatment, Kaplan-Meier Estimate, Angioplasty, Balloon instrumentation, Angioplasty, Balloon adverse effects, Vascular Patency, Arteriovenous Shunt, Surgical adverse effects, Coated Materials, Biocompatible, Graft Occlusion, Vascular etiology, Graft Occlusion, Vascular therapy, Graft Occlusion, Vascular physiopathology, Graft Occlusion, Vascular diagnostic imaging
- Abstract
Purpose: To compare patency and reintervention outcomes after either plain old balloon angioplasty (POBA) or drug-coated balloon angioplasty (DCBA) for venous stenoses after percutaneous arteriovenous fistula (pAVF) creation., Materials and Methods: One-hundred ninety-five pAVFs were successfully created during the study period, 141 using Ellipsys and 54 using Wavelinq. After pAVF creation, 95 patients (48.7%) required secondary percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) with either POBA (n = 55, 58%) or DCBA (n = 40, 42.1%). The most common site for PTA was the juxta-anastomotic segment (75.5%; 74/98). Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were used to compare target lesion primary patency, access circuit primary patency, secondary patency, and reintervention rates in the POBA and DCBA cohorts., Results: Thirty-four of 55 (62%) patients in the POBA cohort and 14 of 40 (35%) patients in the DCBA cohort required reinterventions for pAVF restenosis. Mean number of follow-up days among patients treated with POBA was 1,030.4 (SD ± 342.9) and among those treated with DCBA was 744.4 (SD ± 403.5). The use of POBA compared with DCBA was not associated with target lesion and access circuit primary patency loss in multivariate analysis (hazard ratio [HR], 1.81; 95% CI, 0.93-3.51; P = .080; and HR, 1.77; 95% CI, 0.73-4.28; P = .210, respectively). However, time from fistula creation to the first PTA (days) was statistically significantly associated with both outcomes (HR, 0.997; 95% CI, 0.994-0.999; P = .009; and HR, 0.997; 95% CI, 0.992-0.999; P = .021, respectively). There were no major adverse events., Conclusions: In this retrospective single-center analysis of pAVFs, considerably more patients who underwent PTA with POBA after pAVF creation required reinterventions compared with PTA using DCBA, although the follow-up time of POBA was longer. In multivariate analysis, no differences were noted in the hazard of patency loss between POBA and DCBA., (Copyright © 2024 SIR. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)
- Published
- 2024
- Full Text
- View/download PDF