Panagiotis M Kitrou1, Stavros Spiliopoulos2, Konstantinos Katsanos3, Evangelos Papachristou4, Dimitris Siablis1, Dimitris Karnabatidis1. 1. Interventional Radiology Department, Patras University Hospital, Patras, Achaia 26500, Greece. 2. Interventional Radiology Department, Patras University Hospital, Patras, Achaia 26500, Greece.. Electronic address: stavspiliop@upatras.gr. 3. Interventional Radiology Department, Guy's and St. Thomas Hospitals National Health Service Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom. 4. Nephrology Department, Patras University Hospital, Patras, Achaia 26500, Greece.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To report 1-year results of a single-center randomized controlled trial comparing paclitaxel-coated balloon (PCB) versus high-pressure plain balloon angioplasty for the treatment of failing arteriovenous fistulae (AVFs). MATERIALS AND METHODS:Forty patients (26 men; mean age, 61 y ± 14.63) were randomized at 1:1 to undergo PCB (n = 20) or high-pressure balloon (HPB; n = 20) angioplasty of dysfunctional AVFs. There were no significant differences in baseline demographics between groups. Enrollment required a clinical diagnosis of a dysfunctional AVF attributed to a single stenotic lesion verified with digital subtraction angiography. Primary endpoints included device success, anatomic success, clinical success, and target lesion revascularization (TLR)-free survival. Secondary endpoints included dialysis circuit primary patency and procedure-related complication rates. RESULTS:Device success rates were 100% in the HPB group and 35% in the PCB group (P < 0001): further dilation with an HPB was needed to achieve anatomic success in 13 of 20 cases in the PCB group (65%). Anatomic and clinical success rates were 100% in both groups. TLR-free survival (PCB, 308 d; HPB, 161 d; hazard ratio [HR], 0.478; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.236-0.966; P = .03) and access circuit primary patency (PCB, 270 d; HPB, 161 d; HR, 0.479; 95% CI, 0.237-0.968; P = .04) were significantly in favor of PCB angioplasty. No minor or major procedure-related complications occurred. CONCLUSIONS: In this single-center study, the use of PCBs resulted in superior TLR-free survival and dialysis access circuit primary patency of dysfunctional AVFs. However, additional HPB postdilation was required in the majority of cases.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To report 1-year results of a single-center randomized controlled trial comparing paclitaxel-coated balloon (PCB) versus high-pressure plain balloon angioplasty for the treatment of failing arteriovenous fistulae (AVFs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty patients (26 men; mean age, 61 y ± 14.63) were randomized at 1:1 to undergo PCB (n = 20) or high-pressure balloon (HPB; n = 20) angioplasty of dysfunctional AVFs. There were no significant differences in baseline demographics between groups. Enrollment required a clinical diagnosis of a dysfunctional AVF attributed to a single stenotic lesion verified with digital subtraction angiography. Primary endpoints included device success, anatomic success, clinical success, and target lesion revascularization (TLR)-free survival. Secondary endpoints included dialysis circuit primary patency and procedure-related complication rates. RESULTS: Device success rates were 100% in the HPB group and 35% in the PCB group (P < 0001): further dilation with an HPB was needed to achieve anatomic success in 13 of 20 cases in the PCB group (65%). Anatomic and clinical success rates were 100% in both groups. TLR-free survival (PCB, 308 d; HPB, 161 d; hazard ratio [HR], 0.478; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.236-0.966; P = .03) and access circuit primary patency (PCB, 270 d; HPB, 161 d; HR, 0.479; 95% CI, 0.237-0.968; P = .04) were significantly in favor of PCB angioplasty. No minor or major procedure-related complications occurred. CONCLUSIONS: In this single-center study, the use of PCBs resulted in superior TLR-free survival and dialysis access circuit primary patency of dysfunctional AVFs. However, additional HPB postdilation was required in the majority of cases.