Literature DB >> 18829240

Angioplasty with stent graft versus bare stent for recurrent cephalic arch stenosis in autogenous arteriovenous access for hemodialysis: a prospective randomized clinical trial.

David Shemesh1, Ilya Goldin, Ibrahim Zaghal, Daniel Berlowitz, David Raveh, Oded Olsha.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Early recurrent stenosis of the cephalic arch in autogenous arteriovenous access for hemodialysis is a common problem that requires stenting to prevent thrombosis. Because the results of stenting are unsatisfactory, we compared the efficacy of stent grafts with bare stents in these patients.
METHODS: All patients who presented with recurrent cephalic arch stenosis >50% within 3 months of successful balloon angioplasty were randomized to have angioplasty and stenting with either a bare nitinol stent or a stent graft. Outcome was assessed by angiography 3 months later. Restenosis was defined as >50% narrowing of the stent lumen or of the vessel margin up to 0.5 cm adjacent to the stent. There were no exclusions.
RESULTS: This report includes data on the outcome of 25 consecutive patients with recurrent cephalic arch stenosis who were treated from April to August 2006. At 3 months, three patients had died and one had undergone a renal transplant. The 21 patients who had angiography at 3 months had patent stents. Restenosis rates were seven of 10 (70%) in the bare stent group and two of 11 (18%) in the stent graft group (P = .024). Life-table analysis at 3 and 6 months showed that primary patency was 82% in the stent graft group and 39% in the bare stent group. One-year primary patency was 32% in the stent graft group and 0% in the bare stent group (P = .0023). During a mean follow-up of 13.7 months, nine patients died, four in the bare stent group and five in the stent graft group. Two patients in the stent graft group had received a renal transplant. The number of interventions per patient-year was 1.9 in the bare stent group and 0.9 in the stent graft group (P = .02).
CONCLUSIONS: The use of stent grafts in angioplasty for recurrent cephalic arch stenosis significantly improved short-term restenosis rates and long-term patency compared with the use of bare stents. The significant improvement that emerged during the study caused accrual of patients to be halted for ethical reasons. This study altered our usage of stents for venous stenoses in arteriovenous accesses by eliminating bare nitinol stents in favor of stent grafts.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18829240     DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2008.07.071

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Vasc Surg        ISSN: 0741-5214            Impact factor:   4.268


  19 in total

Review 1.  A practical review of the use of stents for the maintenance of hemodialysis access.

Authors:  Michael Ginsburg; Jonathan M Lorenz; Sean P Zivin; Steven Zangan; Don Martinez
Journal:  Semin Intervent Radiol       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 1.513

2.  [Diagnostics and endovascular treatment of venous diseases].

Authors:  L Kamper; A Altenburg; M Das; P Haage
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 0.635

Review 3.  Stent and Stent-Graft Use in Arteriovenous Dialysis Access.

Authors:  Gordon McLennan
Journal:  Semin Intervent Radiol       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 1.513

Review 4.  Pre-emptive correction for haemodialysis arteriovenous access stenosis.

Authors:  Pietro Ravani; Robert R Quinn; Matthew J Oliver; Divya J Karsanji; Matthew T James; Jennifer M MacRae; Suetonia C Palmer; Giovanni F M Strippoli
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2016-01-07

5.  Double Mesh Nitinol Stent Versus Self-expanding Stent-graft in Recurrent/Resistant Cephalic Vein Arch Stenoses in Dialysis Fistulae: A Comparative Study.

Authors:  Shemin Abhay Mehta; Usman Shaikh; Tze Y Chan
Journal:  Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol       Date:  2020-11-06       Impact factor: 2.740

Review 6.  The Role of Endovascular Stents in Dialysis Access Maintenance.

Authors:  Mohamad El Kassem; Issam Alghamdi; Roberto I Vazquez-Padron; Arif Asif; Oliver Lenz; Tina Sanjar; Fadi Fayad; Loay Salman
Journal:  Adv Chronic Kidney Dis       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 3.620

7.  Characterization of the cephalic arch and location of stenosis.

Authors:  Shelby Bennett; Mary S Hammes; Tom Blicharski; Sydeaka Watson; Brian Funaki
Journal:  J Vasc Access       Date:  2014-09-02       Impact factor: 2.283

8.  Paclitaxel coated-balloon (PCB) versus standard plain old balloon (POB) fistuloplasty for failing dialysis access.

Authors:  A G Karmota
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2020-06-15       Impact factor: 1.891

9.  Transposition of the cephalic vein in therapeutic rescue of cephalic arch stenosis.

Authors:  Cristina Cândido; Márcio Viegas; Gonçalo Sobrinho; Ana Natário; Carlos Barreto; Joana Felgueiras; José Vinhas
Journal:  Clin Kidney J       Date:  2014-08-30

10.  Central Transposition of the Cephalic Vein in Patients with Brachiocephalic Arteriovenous Fistula and Cephalic Arch Stenosis.

Authors:  Jihoon Jang; Heekyung Jung; Jayun Cho; Jihye Kim; Hyung-Kee Kim; Seung Huh
Journal:  Vasc Specialist Int       Date:  2014-06-30
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.