ArticleActa Cardiologica Sinica2026
Undersized Versus Conventional Covered Stent Sizing for Hemodialysis Access-Related Central Venous Occlusive Disease: A Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in Acta Cardiologica Sinica, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to compare access and target lesion patency rates between undersized and apposed/oversized lateral-edge covered stents in patients with hemodialysis access-related central venous occlusive disease (CVOD). Methods: A retrospective analysis of 76 hemodialysis patients undergoing endovascular treatment for CVOD was conducted. All of the patients received undersized covered stents at the medial edge. Based on lateral-edge sizing, the patients were divided into undersized (n = 14) and apposed/oversized (n = 62) groups. Patency outcomes were compared using the log-rank test, and multivariable analysis was used to identify risk factors associated with the primary outcome. Results: The 12-month access primary patency rate was significantly higher in the undersized group than in the apposed/oversized group (76.4% vs. 25.9%, p = 0.047). The 12-month target lesion primary patency rate was also higher in the undersized group; however, the difference was not statistically significant (76.4% vs. 52.1%, p = 0.186). Factors associated with the primary outcome included older age (odds ratio [OR] = 1.03, p = 0.011), coronary artery disease (OR = 2.03, p = 0.041), stenting to central veins for access thrombosis (OR = 3.53, p = 0.001), more stents (OR = 3.11, p = 0.002), apposed/oversized lateral stent edge (OR = 2.73, p = 0.044), and higher stent-to-vessel ratio (OR = 1.19, p = 0.022). Conclusions: The 12-month primary patency rate was better in the undersized group than in the apposed/oversized group. Endovascular treatment with undersized covered stents may be a feasible approach for hemodialysis access-related CVOD. Larger randomized studies are required to confirm these findings.
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.