Management of cephalic arch stenosis in hemodialysis access: Updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction: Cephalic arch stenosis (CAS) is often recurrent, resistant to treatment and the intervention outcome is not well validated so far. We purposed to assess the clinical outcomes of CAS treatment in patients with hemodialysis access.Methods: Electronic bibliographic sources were searched up to December 4 2023 to identify studies reported outcome after treating CAS. Direct and indirect evidence was combined to compare odds ratios (OR) and surfaces under the cumulative ranking curves across the different treatment modalities through meta-analysis and network meta-analyses (NMA). This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA-P. The review is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022296513).Results: Four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 15 non-RCTs were included in the analysis. The study population differed in fistula type, restenosis or thrombosis, and significant heterogeneity was observed among the publications. The risk of bias was low to serious. Meta-analysis found no significant difference between DCB and PTA in primary patency at 6 and 12 months (OR 1.16 and 0.60, respectively; low certainty of evidence). Favorable result with STG compared to stent or PTA at 3, 6, and 12 month was observed (OR 4.28, 5.13, and 13.12, and 4.28, 5.13, 13.12, respectively; low certainty of evidence). Regarding primary patency, the treatment rankings, from highest to lowest, were STG (92.7%), transposition (76.0%), stent (67.5%), DCB (46.3%), and PTA (64.5%) at 12 months.Conclusion: Despite data limitations, the low-quality evidence suggests that STG may merit consideration as a primary treatment option when all alternatives are applicable, given their potential for better primary patency and higher treatment ranking.