SynthesisThe British journal of surgery2021
Drug-coated balloon angioplasty for failing haemodialysis access: meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.
Synthesis in The British journal of surgery, 2021. 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.
- Anatomical lesion extent and recurrent failure after balloon angioplasty in arteriovenous fistulas: a competing-risk analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Effect of Drug-Coated Balloons on Recurrent Venous Hypertension Due to Central Venous Lesions in Patients with Hemodialysis Vascular Access.Annals of vascular diseases · 2026Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Drug-Coated Balloon Angioplasty versus Plain Old Balloon Angioplasty for Arteriovenous Fistula Stenosis.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2023Article
- Drug-Coated Balloons for the Dysfunctional Vascular Access: An Evidence-Based Road Map to Treatment and the Existing Obstacles.Seminars in interventional radiology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundArteriovenous fistulas, a major treatment for end-stage kidney disease, frequently require endovascular reinterventions to maintain haemodialysis function. Drug-coated angioplasty balloons (DCBs) were developed with the intention of reducing reintervention rates. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of DCBs in the treatment of failing haemodialysis access.
methodsElectronic databases were searched systematically to identify all relevant RCTs and any follow-up studies from RCTs. Pooled estimates of dichotomous outcomes were calculated using the odds ratio (OR) and 95 per cent confidence interval. Effect data are presented as summary hazard ratio and 95 per cent confidence interval.
resultsSome 19 studies from 18 RCTs and comprising 1898 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with plain balloon angioplasty (PBA), DCB use was associated with higher target-lesion primary patency (HR 0.60, 95 per cent c.i. 0.45 to 0.79), access-circuit primary patency (HR 0.67, 0.56 to 0.80), and less target-lesion revascularization (TLR) within 6 months (OR 0.33, 0.23 to 0.47). No difference was observed between DCB and PBA in 12-month TLR (OR 0.62, 0.28 to 1.37). Mortality after DCB use was similar to that associated with PBA use at 6 months (OR 1.20, 0.65 to 2.21) and 12 months (OR 0.99, 0.66 to 1.49), and was higher at 24 months (23.1 versus 16.6 per cent), although the difference was not statistically significant (OR 1.53, 0.92 to 2.53).
conclusionDrug-coated balloon angioplasty of haemodialysis fistulas is associated with higher patency rates and lower rates of reintervention in the short to mid term. Although mortality rates appeared to be higher with drug-coated angioplasty at 24 months, 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.