ArticleCVIR endovascular2024
Radiofrequency guidewire-facilitated recanalization of chronic thoracic central venous occlusions in hemodialysis patients.
Article in CVIR endovascular, 2024. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Radiofrequency-Wire Assisted Recanalization of Chronically Occluded Iliofemoral Venous Stents.Seminars in interventional radiology · 2026Review
- Cardiac implantable electronic device upgrades and downgrades: a Clinical Consensus Statement of the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) of the ESC, the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Association (APHRS), Canadian Heart Rhythm Society (CHRS), Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS).Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess the outcome and safety of radiofrequency (RF) wire recanalization in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and chronic central venous occlusions (CVO). MATERIALS AND
methodsA retrospective review of ESRD patients who underwent RF-wire recanalization of symptomatic chronic thoracic CVO from January 2017 to August 2022 yielded 20 patients who underwent 21 procedures. All patients had undergone at least one prior unsuccessful attempt at central venous recanalization using conventional catheter-based techniques. Technical success was defined by the ability to cross the CVO using RF-wire recanalization enabling endovascular treatment. Access circuit patency was evaluated based on follow-up imaging and symptomatic improvement.
resultsRadiofrequency wire recanalization was successful in 17/21 procedures (81%) with all patients (100%) reporting resolution of arm ± facial swelling. Three major complications occurred (14%): two hemothoraces and one hemopericardium. Medial stent diameter was 13 mm (range, 9-14 mm). Mean duration of hospital stay was 2 days ± 3 days. Mean procedure time was 158 ± 46 min with a mean fluoroscopy time of 31.7 ± 16.3 min. Primary unassisted patency at 6 and 12 months was 94 ± 6% and 85 ± 10%, respectively. Additional interventions resulted in significantly increased stent graft patency (P = 0.006).
conclusionRadiofrequency wire-enabled recanalization of CVO in symptomatic dialysis patients has a high rate of technical success with resolution of arm and facial swelling and resumed use of the ipsilateral dialysis access. Although a superior safety profile was seen than with needle-based techniques such as sharp recanalization, major complications were not infrequent indicating that this RF-wire procedure should be performed in centers equipped to manage central venous perforations.
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.