Search

Purpose: To compare the effectiveness and safety outcomes of drug-coated balloon angioplasty (DCBA) vs conventional balloon angioplasty (BA) for arteriovenous fistula (AVF) stenosis. Materials and Methods: A systematic review was conducted of PubMed and Embase databases from 1966 to May 2019 to identify English-language articles evaluating DCBA vs BA for the treatment of AVF stenosis. Data extracted from each study were synthesized to evaluate target lesion revascularization (TLR), technical success, and mortality for the 2 approaches. Meta-analyses were performed on these outcomes using random effects models to estimate the odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: Twelve studies [6 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 6 cohort studies] comprising 979 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled results showed that AVFs treated with DCBA had significantly fewer TLRs at 6 months (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.69, p=0.004) and 12 months (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.97, p=0.04) than BA. The 2 approaches had similar technical success rates (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.43, p=0.11). Additionally, the pooled OR of 12-month mortality was 0.71 (95% CI 0.20 to 2.51, p=0.60), indicating no significant difference between DCBA and BA. Subgroup analysis based on study design showed the superiority of DCBA to BA in cohort studies but not RCTs, which had high heterogeneity. Significant publication bias was found in the cohort studies. Conclusion: In de novo or recurrent AVF stenosis, DCBA appears to be an effective procedure associated with lower 6- and 12-month TLR compared with BA. However, larger and randomized controlled studies are warranted to draw definitive conclusions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To compare the safety and efficacy of percutaneous (PEVAR) vs open femoral access (OFA) techniques for endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR).Methods: A systematic review of English-language articles (Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases) between January 1999 and August 2016 returned 11 studies including 1650 patients with 2500 groin accesses eligible for the meta-analysis. Data extracted from each study were synthesized to evaluate technical success rates, procedure time, and complications for the 2 access approaches. Data are presented as the odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The quality of individual studies was evaluated based on the Newcastle-Ottawa scale.Results: The mean technical success rate in the PEVAR group was 94.5% (785/831). The overall OR was 0.38 (95% CI 0.12 to 1.18, p=0.09), indicating no significant difference between the methods. The procedure time in PEVAR was shorter than OFA (mean difference -24.52, 95% CI -46.45 to -22.60, p<0.001). Overall, the total complication rate was 15.3% in the OFA group vs 7.8% in the PEVAR group (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.73, p<0.001). The meta-analysis identified significant differences between groups for all complications (p<0.001) and the following individual adverse events: wound infection (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.81, p=0.02), pseudoaneurysm (OR 8.07, 95% CI 1.54 to 42.32, p=0.01), seroma (OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.55, p=0.008), and lymphocele or lymph leak (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.92, p=0.04).Conclusion: PEVAR had a similar technical success rate, shorter procedure time, and lower complication rate compared with OFA. Thus, percutaneous access appears to be the preferential approach for EVAR. However, larger and randomized studies are needed to draw definitive conclusions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To compare the ultrasound guidance and traditional methods in femoral artery puncture., Methods: We searched the databases to evaluate the rate of success on first attempt and the incidence of hematoma. The random effects model was used for performing a meta-analysis to estimate the odds ratio (ORs), mean difference (MD), and 95% confidence interval (CI)., Results: A total of nine articles including 2,361 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The rate of success on first attempt were 79.6% (1,289/1,619) and 54.1% (883/1,644) in patients of the ultrasound group and traditional method group, respectively [OR = 3.14 (95% CI = 2.30-4.28), combined OR value Z  = 7.23 ( P  < 0.00001)]. The rates of incidence of hematoma in the ultrasound group and traditional puncture group patients were 1.4% (16/1,168) and 3.8% (45/1,193), respectively (OR = 0.41, 95% CI = 0.17-1.00, p  = 0.05)., Conclusion: Ultrasound-guided femoral artery puncture has certain advantages compared with traditional puncture with regard to success on first attempt and the incidence of hematoma. Moreover, ultrasound-guided puncture reduces the incidence of hematoma in the retrograde puncture group patients., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (© 2023 Li, Cao, Zhang, Zhao, Zhao, Yang, Jiang, Li, Zhu and Wu.)

Purpose: To compare the safety and efficacy of percutaneous (PEVAR) vs open femoral access (OFA) techniques for endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR)., Methods: A systematic review of English-language articles (Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases) between January 1999 and August 2016 returned 11 studies including 1650 patients with 2500 groin accesses eligible for the meta-analysis. Data extracted from each study were synthesized to evaluate technical success rates, procedure time, and complications for the 2 access approaches. Data are presented as the odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The quality of individual studies was evaluated based on the Newcastle-Ottawa scale., Results: The mean technical success rate in the PEVAR group was 94.5% (785/831). The overall OR was 0.38 (95% CI 0.12 to 1.18, p=0.09), indicating no significant difference between the methods. The procedure time in PEVAR was shorter than OFA (mean difference -24.52, 95% CI -46.45 to -22.60, p<0.001). Overall, the total complication rate was 15.3% in the OFA group vs 7.8% in the PEVAR group (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.73, p<0.001). The meta-analysis identified significant differences between groups for all complications (p<0.001) and the following individual adverse events: wound infection (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.81, p=0.02), pseudoaneurysm (OR 8.07, 95% CI 1.54 to 42.32, p=0.01), seroma (OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.55, p=0.008), and lymphocele or lymph leak (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.92, p=0.04)., Conclusion: PEVAR had a similar technical success rate, shorter procedure time, and lower complication rate compared with OFA. Thus, percutaneous access appears to be the preferential approach for EVAR. However, larger and randomized studies are needed to draw definitive conclusions.

Objective: To evaluate the use of percutaneous mechanical thrombectomy in the treatment of acute deep venous thrombosis., Methods: Eight cases of acute deep venous thrombosis were reviewed who had received percutaneous mechanical thrombectomy from January to July, 2015 in Beijing Tsinghua Changgung Hospital. All cases were diagnosed as iliofemoral venous thrombosis, 2 cases with vena cava thrombosis. All cases received anticoagulation treatment for 3 to 6 months and pressure treatment after the procedure. Every patient was scheduled to follow up at 1, 3, 6 months, respectively., Results: Technical success were achieved in all cases with restoring of good flow in previous lesions. Grade Ⅲ (complete) lysis was achieved in 2 cases and grade Ⅱ(50%-99% ) lysis in 6 cases, swelling legs were mostly fade away. Of all study follow up , only one case with mild post-thrombotic syndrome after six months., Conclusion: Percutaneous mechanical thrombectomy is safe and effective in the treatment of acute deep venous thrombosis.

Objective: To evaluate the perioperative complications and effectiveness of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) with diabetes mellitus (DM)., Methods: A total of 148 patients with carotid stenosis undergone CEA from December 2010 to December 2013 were collected and analyzed retrospectively. The patients were distributed into DM group (n=83) and the control group (n=65) according to the comorbidities. Age, gender, risk factors, stenosis degree, cerebral ischemic symptom, shunt in operation, perioperative complications and restenosis after one year in the two groups were analyzed and compared., Results: There were no statistical difference between the two groups in terms of the general characteristic, clinical ischemic symptoms, concomitant disease, operative time, the amount of bleeding, the ratio of shunt (P>0.05). The rates of perioperative complications observed in DM group, including postoperative infection, neck hematoma, cranial nerves injured, acute cardiac infarction, stroke, hyperperfusion syndrome, all-cause mortality and one year restenosis after operation were 7.2%, 12.0%, 10.8%, 3.6%, 6.0%, 9.6%, 2.4% and 9.6% respectively. The complication rates observed in the control group, on the other hand were 3.1%, 9.2%, 4.6%, 1.5%, 4.6%, 7.7%, 1.5% and 3.1% respectively. There were no significant statistical difference between the two groups (χ² =0.551, 0.300, 1.898, 0.069, 0, 0.172, 0.138, 1.559, P>0.05)., Conclusion: CEA may be safe and effective in diabetic patients suffering from carotid stenosis, on the condition that the blood glucoses of the patients are controlled well, and the cardio cerebral vascular system is carefully assessed and intervened before the operation.