ArticleBMC nephrology2022
Cephalic arch restenosis rates in hemodialysis patients with brachiocephalic fistulae: a retrospective multicenter analysis of 3301 patients.
Article in BMC nephrology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Outcomes of Surgical and Endovascular Treatment for Cephalic Arch Stenosis in Proximal Arteriovenous Fistula.Vascular specialist international · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe evaluated restenosis rates at the cephalic arch after percutaneous angioplasty and stenting procedures in patients with brachial artery to cephalic vein arteriovenous fistula (BCAVF) hemodialysis access.
methodsWe used data from adult hemodialysis patients treated at a national network of 44 outpatient interventional facilities during Oct 2011-2015. We included data from patients with BCAVF who received an exclusive angioplasty, or stent with angioplasty, for treatment of cephalic arch stenosis and had ≥1 subsequent evaluation of the cephalic arch. Median percent restenosis per month at cephalic arch and days between encounters was calculated from the 1st index to 2nd procedure, and for up to 4 subsequent encounters. Analyses were stratified by intervention and device types.
resultsWe identified a cohort of 3301 patients (mean age 62.2 ± 13.9 years, 58.5% male, 33.2% white race) with a BCAVF who had an angioplasty, or stent, at the cephalic arch for an index and ≥ 1 follow-up procedure. Between the 1st index to 2nd procedure, patients who received an angioplasty (n = 2663) or stent (n = 933) showed a median decrease of 18.9 and 16.5% in luminal diameter per month and a median time of 93 and 91 days between encounters, respectively. Restenosis and day rates were similar for standard versus high-pressure angioplasties. Bare metal stents showed 10.1 percentage point higher restenosis rate compared to stent grafts. Restenosis rates and time to restenosis were relatively consistent across subsequent encounters.
conclusionsFindings suggest hemodialysis patients with a BCAVF who require an angioplasty or stent to treat a stenosis at the cephalic arch will have stenosis reformed at a rate of 18.9 and 16.5% per month after the first intervention, respectively. Findings suggest patients are at risk of having significant lesions at the cephalic arch within 3 months after the previous intervention.
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.