ArticleCVIR endovascular2024
Cephalic arch stenosis: an analysis of outcome by type of first intervention.
Article in CVIR endovascular, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCephalic arch stenoses (CAS) occur in near 70% of elbow arteriovenous fistulas. Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) remains first-line treatment despite documented stent-grafts (SG) efficacy. The study aim is to report long-term outcomes based on initial treatment of CAS.
methodsRetrospective review of 12-year data in single tertiary centre. Outcomes included technical success, rupture rate, primary patency (PP), dialysis performance; categorical variables assessed via χ
resultsOne hundred one brachio- and radiocephalic fistulas with CAS were included. SG as first intervention had higher success than PTA (85% vs 61%, p = 0.003). Rupture occurred in 9/85 (10.6%) PTA vs 0% in SG (p = 0.046). In a subgroup with poor urea reduction rate (URR), both PTA and SG improved dialysis performance post-intervention (p = 0.002). SG demonstrated better PP than PTA (79,73,60% patency at 3, 6, 9 months; versus 71,51,47%; p = 0.195) and cumulative patency (73,61,61% at 1, 2, 3 years; versus 60,34,26%; p < 0.001). Of the variables analyzed, technical success of PTA was the only discriminating factor (coeff.-1.01; RR 35%, p = 0.035). Accesses that underwent secondary stenting performed better than primarily stented CAS (p = 0.01).
conclusionsSG superiority is confirmed in CAS, particularly when angioplasty is unsuccessful. While PTA has short-lived benefits, it can improve dialysis performance. Other than higher success rate, primary CAS stenting did not have advantages compared to post-PTA stenting in our study. Other factors related to inflow, outflow, conduit characteristics are presumed to be involved in access longevity.
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.