ArticleCardiovascular and interventional radiology2021
Double Mesh Nitinol Stent Versus Self-expanding Stent-graft in Recurrent/Resistant Cephalic Vein Arch Stenoses in Dialysis Fistulae: A Comparative Study.
Article in Cardiovascular and interventional radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the double mesh nitinol stent (DNS) versus the self-expanding stent-graft (SES) in recurrent/resistant cephalic vein arch stenosis in dialysis fistulae. MATERIALS AND
methods17 cases with recurrent/resistant stenosis of the cephalic vein arch treated with a DNS were compared retrospectively with 18 cases treated with an SES. Stenting was performed either for significant recoil post-angioplasty with high-pressure balloons or in recurrent stenoses. Patients were followed up with Doppler ultrasound in our vascular access surveillance programme. Primary and assisted primary patency rates at 3, 6 and 12 months were estimated by Kaplan-Meier analysis.
resultsBoth stents showed 100% technical success immediately post-stenting, defined as residual stenosis < 30%. 3, 6 and 12 month primary patency of the DNS was 82.4%, 69.7% and 28.1% versus 88.9%, 77.8% and 72.2% for the SES. The DNS had a mean primary patency of 242.4 days compared to 896.3 days for the SES (p = 0.021). 12 month assisted primary patency was 88.2% (DNS) and 100% (SES). The DNS had a mean assisted primary patency of 812 days compared to 1390.3 days for the SES, though this did not reach statistical significance. No stent fractures were identified at 2 years in either group.
conclusionBoth stents had 100% technical success with no stent fractures. SES showed statistically significant higher primary patency. Assisted primary patency was also higher, though this did not reach statistical significance.
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.