ArticleCureus2025
The Role of Covered Stents in Hemodialysis Access: Experience From a Vascular Access Centre.
Article in Cureus, 2025. 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
Background Vascular access (VA) dysfunction in hemodialysis (HD) significantly impacts patient outcomes. While percutaneous transluminal angioplasty remains the primary intervention, covered stents (CSs) have emerged as a valuable adjunct. This study evaluates the efficacy of CS in reducing reinterventions and delaying subsequent procedures. Methods This retrospective study included patients who underwent their first CS placement at the SANFIL Vascular Access Centre between 2017 and 2022, involving arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs) and arteriovenous grafts (AVGs). The primary outcome was a comparison of the number of procedures 12 months before and after CS placement. Secondary outcomes assessed primary patency (PP), assisted primary patency (APP), secondary patency (SP), and factors influencing these outcomes. Results Eleven patients were included, 72.7% male, with a mean age of 74.6 ± 8.8 years. Seven (63.6%) patients had an AVF. In the 12 months after CS placement, only two VAs did not require reintervention, while the remaining nine exhibited CS-related dysfunctions. The mean number of interventions in the 12 months before and after CS placement was similar (1.73 ± 1.01 and 1.64 ± 1.63, respectively; p = 0.85). However, the mean time to reintervention after CS placement was longer than the previous intervention: 6.22 ± 3.67 and 2.63 ± 2.60 months, respectively. PP was significantly higher in AVFs than in AVGs. Conclusions CS placement may delay the need for subsequent interventions, but it does not significantly reduce the frequency of procedures or improve overall VA survival. The decision to deploy a CS should be made on a case-by-case basis, particularly for patients with limited vascular options or those who are unable to undergo additional surgical procedures. Careful patient selection is essential to ensure the optimal use of CS in HD patients.
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.