ArticleJournal of Korean medical science2016
Clinical Outcomes of Cryopreserved Arterial Allograft Used as a Vascular Conduit for Hemodialysis.
Article in Journal of Korean medical science, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Preservation of human vascular tissue and the relevance of temperature: a narrative review.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Review
- The challenging surgical vascular access creation.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2023Review
- Refined surgical techniques to improve the patency of cryopreserved iliac artery homografts for middle hepatic vein reconstruction during living donor liver transplantation.Annals of surgical treatment and research · 2020Article
- The choice of cryopreservation method affects immune compatibility of human cardiovascular matrices.Scientific reports · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This single center cohort study aimed to test the hypothesis that use of a cryopreserved arterial allograft could avoid the maturation or healing process of a new vascular access and to evaluate the patency of this technique compared with that of vascular access using a prosthetic graft. Between April 2012 and March 2013, 20 patients underwent an upper arm vascular access using a cryopreserved arterial allograft for failed or failing vascular accesses and 53 using a prosthetic graft were included in this study. The mean duration of catheter dependence, calculated as the time interval from upper arm access placement to removal of the tunneled central catheter after successful cannulation of the access, was significantly longer for accesses using a prosthetic graft than a cryopreserved arterial allograft (34.4 ± 11.39 days vs. 4.9 ± 8.5 days, P < 0.001). In the allograft group, use of vascular access started within 7 days in 16 patients (80%), as soon as from the day of surgery in 10 patients. Primary (unassisted; P = 0.314) and cumulative (assisted; P = 0.673) access survivals were similar in the two groups. There were no postoperative complications related to the use of a cryopreserved iliac arterial allograft except for one patient who experienced wound hematoma. In conclusion, upper arm vascular access using a cryopreserved arterial allograft may permit immediate hemodialysis without the maturation or healing process, resulting in access survival comparable to that of an access using a prosthetic graft.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.