SynthesisAnnals of vascular surgery2022
Primary Balloon Angioplasty Versus Hydrostatic Dilation for Arteriovenous Fistula Creation in Patients with Small-Caliber Cephalic Veins: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Annals of vascular surgery, 2022. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prediction model for radial-cephalic arteriovenous fistula failure to mature.Annals of medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFor arteriovenous fistula (AVF) presence of a venous segment with adequate diameter is essential which is lacking in many patients. To find the optimal augmentation technique in patients with small-caliber cephalic vein (i.e., cephalic vein diameter <3 mm), studies compared primary balloon angioplasty (PBA) versus hydrostatic dilation (HD); however, it remained debatable. This systematic review seeks to determine which technique is preferable.
methodsWe searched MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar. Primary outcomes were 6-month primary patency, reintervention, and working AVF. Secondary outcomes were immediate success, the AVF's maturation time (day), and surgical site infection.
resultsThree randomized controlled trials yielding 180 patients were included, of which 89 patients were in the PBA group. The odds ratio (OR) of primary patency was significantly higher in the PBA group (OR 6.09, 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.36-15.76, P = 0.0002), the OR of reintervention was significantly lower in the PBA group (OR 0.16, 95% CI, 0.06-0.42, P = 0.0002), and the OR of working AVF was greater in PBA group (OR 4.22, 95% CI, 1.31-13.59, P = 0.02). The OR of immediate success was significantly greater in the PBA group (OR 11.42, 95% CI, 2.54-51.42, P = 0.002), and the AVF maturation time was significantly shorter in patients who underwent PBA (mean difference -20.32 days, 95% CI, -30.12 to -10.52, P = 0.0001). The certainty of the evidence was high.
conclusionsPBA of small cephalic veins with diameter ≤2.5 cm is a safe, feasible, and efficacious augmentation method for AVF creation. This technique achieves favorable maturation outcomes, and PBA is superior to the standard hydrostatic dilatation technique.
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.