1. Treatment of cephalic arch stenosis in dysfunctional arteriovenous fistulas with paclitaxel-coated versus conventional balloon angioplasty
- Author
-
Shereen X. Y. Soon, Tjun Y. Tang, Ru Yu Tan, Tze Tec Chong, Apoorva Gogna, Ren Kwang A. Tng, Chieh Suai Tan, Charyl Jia Qi Yap, and Suh Chien Pang
- Subjects
Target lesion ,medicine.medical_specialty ,Paclitaxel ,business.industry ,medicine.medical_treatment ,Angioplasty ,Arteriovenous fistula ,Retrospective cohort study ,medicine.disease ,Balloon ,Thrombosis ,Surgery ,Lesion ,Stenosis ,RC666-701 ,medicine ,Diseases of the circulatory (Cardiovascular) system ,Original Article ,Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and imaging ,medicine.symptom ,Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine ,business ,Cephalic arch stenosis - Abstract
Background Treatment of cephalic arch stenosis (CAS) with standard plain old balloon angioplasty (POBA) in dysfunctional arteriovenous fistulas (AVF), is associated with early re-stenosis and higher failure rates compared to other lesions. Paclitaxel-coated balloons (PCB) may improve patency rates. This is a retrospective cohort study. Patients who underwent POBA or PCB for CAS over a 3-year period were included. Outcomes compared were circuit primary patency rates (patency from index procedure to next intervention), circuit primary assisted-patency rates (patency from index procedure to thrombosis), and target lesion (CAS) patency rates (stenosis > 50%) at 3, 6 and 12 months. Results Ninety-one patients were included. Sixty-five (71.4%) had POBA, while 26 (28.6%) had PCB angioplasty. There were 62 (68.1%) de-novo lesions. CAS was the only lesion that needed treatment in 24 (26.4%) patients. Circuit primary patency rates for POBA versus PCB groups were 76.2% vs. 60% (p = 0.21), 43.5% vs. 36% (p = 0.69) and 22% vs. 9.1% (p = 0.22) at 3, 6 and 12-months respectively. Circuit assisted-primary patency rates were 93.7% vs. 92% (p = 1.00), 87.1% vs. 80% (p = 0.51) and 76.3% vs. 81.8% (p = 0.77), whilst CAS target lesion intervention-free patency rates were 79.4% vs. 68% (p = 0.40), 51.6% vs. 52% (p = 1.00) and 33.9% vs. 22.7% (p = 0.49) at 3, 6 and 12-months respectively. Estimated mean time to target lesion intervention was 215 ± 183.2 days for POBA and 225 ± 186.6 days for PCB (p = 0.20). Conclusion Treatment of CAS with PCB did not improve target lesion or circuit patency rates compared to POBA.
- Published
- 2021
- Full Text
- View/download PDF