We provide evidence that active blood flow surveillance and pre-emptive repair of subclinical stenosis reduce the thrombosis rate and prolong the functional life of mature forearm AVFs. We also show that Qa is a crucial indicator of access patency and a Qa >350 ml/min portends a superior outcome with pre-emptive action in AVFs.
Abstract. Balloon angioplasty (PTA) is an established treatment modality for stenosis in dysfunctional arteriovenous fistulae (AVF), although most studies showing efficacy have been retrospective, uncontrolled, and nonrandomized. In addition, it is unknown whether correction of stenosis not associated with significant hemodynamic, functional, and clinical abnormality may improve survival in AVF. This study was a prospective controlled open trial to evaluate whether prophylactic PTA of stenosis not associated with access dysfunction improves survival in native, virgin, radiocephalic forearm AVF. Sixty-two stenotic, functioning AVF, i.e., able to provide adequate dialysis, were enrolled in the study: 30 were allocated to control and 32 to PTA. End points of the study were either AVF thrombosis or surgical revision due to reduction in delivered dialysis dose. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that PTA improved AVF functional failure-free survival rates (P ϭ 0.012) with a fourfold increase in median survival and a 2.87-fold decrease in risk of failure. Cox proportional hazard model identified PTA as the only variable associated with outcome (P ϭ 0.012). PTA induced an increase in access blood flow rate (Qa) by 323 (236 to 445) ml/min (P Ͻ 0.001), suggesting that improved AVF survival is the result of increased Qa. PTA was also associated with a significant decrease in access-related morbidity by approximately halving the risk of hospitalization, central venous catheterization, and thrombectomy (P Ͻ 0.05). This study shows that prophylactic PTA of stenosis in functioning forearm AVF improves access survival and decreases access-related morbidity, supporting the usefulness of preventive correction of stenosis before the development of access dysfunction. It also strongly supports surveillance program for early detection of stenosis.
Surgery is the traditional treatment for juxta-anastomotic stenoses in forearm arteriovenous fistulas (AVF), but percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) is a suitable alternative. No prospective comparative trials between the two have been reported to date, however. A retrospective analysis of prospectively, concurrently collected data was performed to compare the outcome and cost of surgery and PTA in the preemptive repair of juxta-anastomotic stenosis in lower forearm AVF. Sixty-four AVF with >50% venous juxta-anastomotic stenosis were considered: 21 were treated surgically (11 proximal neo-anastomosis and 10 polytetrafluoroethylene interposition graft) and 43 by PTA. After treatment, AVF were monitored by quarterly ultrasound dilution access blood flow measurement. End points were restenosis and procedure failure rate (re-intervention by another technique or access loss), and determinants were analyzed using Cox hazard model. Initial procedural success was 100% for surgery and 95% for PTA (P ؍ 0.539). Restenosis rate was 0.168 and 0.519 events/AVF-year for surgery and PTA, respectively (P ؍ 0.009). The type of procedure was the only variable that was significantly associated with restenosis, the adjusted relative risk being 2.77-fold higher (95% confidence interval 1.07 to 7.17; P ؍ 0.036) after PTA than surgery. The procedure failure rate was 0.110 and 0.097 events/AVF-year for surgery and PTA, respectively (P ؍ 0.736). The cost profile also was similar for the two procedures. This prospective comparative study confirms a higher restenosis rate after PTA than surgery, but with strict surveillance for restenosis, the two procedures show similar assisted primary patency and cost, suggesting that they should be considered equally valid, complementary alternatives in the preemptive treatment of juxtaanastomotic stenosis in forearm AVF.
SummaryBackground and objectives: Guidelines recommend systematically screening for stenosis using various methods, but no studies so far have compared all of the options. A prospective blinded study was performed to compare the performance of several bedside tests performed during dialysis in diagnosing angiographically proven Ͼ50% fistula stenosis.
Design, setting, participants, & measurementsIn an unselected population of 119 hemodialysis patients with mature fistulas, physical examination (PE) was conducted; dynamic and derived static venous pressure (VAPR), blood pump flow/arterial pressure (Qb/AP) ratio, recirculation (R), and access blood flow (Qa) were measured; and angiography was performed.Results Angiography identified 59 stenotic fistulas: 43 stenoses were located upstream from the venous needle (inflow stenosis), 12 were located downstream (outflow stenosis), and 4 were located at both sites. The optimal tests for identifying an inflow stenosis were Qa Ͻ 650 ml/min and the combination of a positive PE "or" Qa Ͻ 650 ml/min (accuracy 80% and 81%, respectively), the latter being preferable because it was more sensitive (85% versus 65%, respectively) for a comparable specificity (79% versus 89%, respectively). The best tests for identifying outflow stenosis were PE and VAPR, with no difference between the two (accuracy 91% and 85%, sensitivity 75% and 81%, specificity 93% and 86%, respectively), the former being preferable because it was more reproducible, easier to perform, and applicable to all fistulas.
ConclusionsThis study showed that fistula stenosis can be detected and located during dialysis with a moderate-to-excellent accuracy using PE and Qa measurement as screening procedures.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.