ArticleThe British journal of radiology2024
Transjugular approach: comparison with conventional endovascular treatment of native arteriovenous fistulas.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of the transjugular approach with those of the conventional approach for endovascular treatment of arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs).
methodsBetween May 2015 and July 2019, 112 patients with endovascular treatment of dysfunctional or immature AVFs were included and divided into the transjugular (n = 46) and conventional (n = 66) groups. Electronic medical records and angiography of the patients were retrospectively reviewed to assess technical and clinical success rates, time to first fistulography, total procedure time, primary and secondary patency, and complications in both groups.
resultsThere were no significant differences in technical success rate (87.0% vs 97.0%; P = .062), clinical success rate (80.4% vs 90.9%; P = .109), or total procedure time (60.2 vs 57.9 min; P = .670) between the groups. Cox proportional hazards models showed that the cumulative primary patency was significantly higher in the transjugular group than in the conventional group (P = .041; 6-month patency rates, 93.8% vs 91.5%). Also, a statistically significant difference was found between the cumulative secondary patency of the groups (P = .014; 6-month patency rates, 91.4% vs 86.5%). No major complications were observed.
conclusionsTransjugular endovascular treatment of AVFs was successful and effective. Longer patency periods were observed when treated via transjugular access. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This article compared the outcomes of transjugular approaches with those of conventional approaches in the endovascular treatment of native AVFs and showed higher patency periods/rates in the transjugular group than in the conventional group.
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.