ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2025
Duplex ultrasound compared with digital subtraction angiography in diagnosing significant stenosis of vascular access.
Article in International urology and nephrology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of duplex ultrasound (DUS) using peak systolic velocity (PSV), PSV ratio (PSVR), and volume flow in detecting vascular access stenosis, compared to digital subtraction angiography.
methodsA cohort of 121 patients with arteriovenous (AV) fistulas or grafts were evaluated between January 2013 and September 2013 for clinical indicators of dysfunction, including reduced thrill, weak bruit, decreased dialysis flow, high venous pressure or excessive post-dialysis bleeding using our own collective diagnostic criteria based on previously published parameters. Critical stenosis was defined as PSV >400 cm/s, PSVR >3.5, and volume flow <400 mL/min. Angiography was performed for all hemodynamically significant stenoses diagnosed by DUS.
resultsAmong 121 patients (mean age, 56.6 ± 17.3 years; 64% men), DUS findings included normal studies (24%), mild stenosis (9.9%), moderate stenosis (15.7%), severe stenosis (40.5%), and total occlusions (9.9%). Stenosis locations were at the anastomotic site (86.3%), the junctional (11.3%), and the venous outflow (2.5%). Critical stenosis was identified in 49 (40.5%) patients. Of 46 patients who underwent angiography, critical stenosis was confirmed in 44. DUS demonstrated a positive predictive value (PPV) of 95.6% for detecting significant stenosis, supporting its reliability in vascular access assessment. Study limitations include its small sample size, retrospective design, and limited generalizability. Furthermore, analysis was limited to positive sonographic findings precluding sensitivity/specificity assessment.
conclusionDUS is accurate in diagnosing severe vascular access stenosis, with a PPV exceeding 95%. Its non-invasive nature and high predictive value support its use as a first-line imaging modality for vascular access evaluation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40450644What 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.