ArticleClinical kidney journal2025
Comparative outcomes of surgical versus percutaneous arteriovenous fistulas: a prospective study.
Article in Clinical kidney journal, 2025. 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.
- Impact of interventions in endovascular arteriovenous fistula created using the WavelinQ 4-F EndoAVF system on personalised vascular access strategy for patients with end-stage renal disease.Polish journal of radiology · 2025Article
- Value-Based Model for Vascular Access Management in the End-Stage Kidney Disease Population.Seminars in dialysisReview
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
Background: For patients undergoing haemodialysis (HD), the choice of vascular access is pivotal in determining morbidity and mortality outcomes. Traditionally, native arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs) have been created through surgical procedures. However, percutaneous endovascular devices for AVF formation have been introduced into clinical practice, showing promising early results. This study aims to compare the outcomes of endovascular AVFs (endoAVFs) created using the WavelinQ EndoAVF System (BD, Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA) and surgically created radiocephalic (RC) AVFs in real-world settings. Methods: This prospective, single-centre, two-arm study included patients who underwent the creation of either an endoAVF using the WavelinQ EndoAVF System or an RC AVF at a university hospital between December 2021 and August 2023. Results: A total of 20 patients who underwent an endoAVF and 40 who underwent a surgical AVF (SAVF) were included. Technical success was 100% in both groups. A total of 75% of the endoAVFs and 60% of the SAVFs met the criteria for physiological suitability. Among the AVFs that reached physiological suitability, the cannulation rate was 66% for the endoAVFs and 70.86% for the SAVFs. At the 6-month follow-up, the primary and cumulative patency rates were 65% and 75% in the endoAVF group and 57.5% and 60% in the SAVF group, respectively. At 12 months, these rates were 50% and 70% in the endoAVF group and 50% and 60% in the SAVF group, respectively. No serious adverse events were observed. The reintervention rate was 0.25/patient/year in the endoAVF group and 0.1 in the SAVF group. Conclusion: The results of our study showed endoAVFs may be a safe and effective alternative to RC AVFs, showing high rates of technical success and patency with a low rate of reinterventions and complications.
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.