Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32292765›Full record

ArticleVascular specialist international2020

Use of Paclitaxel Coated Drug Eluting Technology to Improve Central Vein Patency for Haemodialysis Access Circuits: Any Benefit?

Tze Tec Chong, Hao Yun Yap, Chieh Suai Tan, Qingwei Shaun Lee, Sze Ling Chan, Ian Jun Yan Wee, Tjun Yip Tang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Vascular specialist international, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Management of Central Venous Stenoses and Occlusions.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2023
    Review
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Tze Tec ChongDepartment of Vascular Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5927-4303
Hao Yun YapDepartment of Vascular Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0476-3550
Chieh Suai TanDepartment of Interventional Nephrology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8850-5585
Qingwei Shaun LeeDepartment of Vascular Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7892-8568
Sze Ling ChanHealth Services Research Center, SingHealth, Singapore.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4272-4595
Ian Jun Yan WeeYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8778-1943
Tjun Yip TangDepartment of Vascular Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8524-7912

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeCentral venous stenosis is a recurring problem affecting dialysis access patency. Increasing evidence suggests that the use of drug-coated balloons (DCBs) improves target lesion primary patency (TLPP) in dialysis access. However, few studies have investigated the use of DCBs specifically in central venous stenosis. Thus, this study presents our initial experience with DCBs in the central vein of a dialysis access circuit. MATERIALS AND

methodsThis is a retrospective cohort study of all hemodialysis patients who underwent central vein angioplasty with DCB between February 2017 and March 2018 at Singapore General Hospital. We compared the primary patency post DCB angioplasty to the primary patency of the patient's previous plain old balloon angioplasty (POBA).

resultsWe observed a 100% anatomic and procedural success rate with no complications. The median follow-up period was 151 days (interquartile range, 85.5-234 days) and no patients were lost to follow-up. The 30- and 90-day TLPPs after DCB were 93.3% and 75.7%, respectively. The mean primary patency in our study group post-DCB during the follow-up period was 164 days (vs. 140 days in the POBA group). However, no statistically significant difference was detected.

conclusionDCB showed a similar TLPP to that for POBA in treating central venous stenosis with a trend toward a longer re-intervention-free period for DCB. However, there were numerous confounding factors and a well-designed randomized controlled trial is warranted to assess the true utility of DCB in treating central venous stenosis.

Indexed as

Balloon angioplastyCentral venous stenosisHemodialysisPaclitaxelVascular patency

Identifiers

PMID32292765
PMCPMC7119145

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.