2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2015.09.031
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Results of repeated percutaneous interventions on failing arteriovenous fistulas and grafts and factors affecting outcomes

Abstract: The second percutaneous interventions on AVFs and AVGs are associated with excellent technical success but poor primary patency. The need for pharmacomechanical thrombectomy predicts the need for additional percutaneous intervention to maintain patency. With additional interventions, acceptable secondary patency out to 5 years can be achieved, although AVGs have inferior secondary patency to AVFs. To develop optimal practice management algorithms, the effectiveness of repeated percutaneous interventions for fa… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

4
27
1
1

Year Published

2017
2017
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 39 publications
(33 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
(16 reference statements)
4
27
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…AVG is thought to be at higher risk of stenosis and thrombosis compared to AVF due to unendothelialized foreign material that attracts macrophages and accelerates neointimal hyperplasia from the release of pro‐inflammatory cytokines 19 . Our multivariate analysis however showed that the type of AV access was not a significant predictor of patency (Table 4), which is consistent with previous study where the purported patency advantage of AVF over AVG was not seen when repeated interventions were required 20 …”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 90%
“…AVG is thought to be at higher risk of stenosis and thrombosis compared to AVF due to unendothelialized foreign material that attracts macrophages and accelerates neointimal hyperplasia from the release of pro‐inflammatory cytokines 19 . Our multivariate analysis however showed that the type of AV access was not a significant predictor of patency (Table 4), which is consistent with previous study where the purported patency advantage of AVF over AVG was not seen when repeated interventions were required 20 …”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 90%
“…12 Considering that this might be a marker of poor vascular quality, some authors defend that placement of an AVG may be a better choice in certain patients with high risk of AVF failure. 12,122 Moreover, Malka et al 123 reported that second endovascular interventions on AVFs are associated with poor primary patency and that pharmacomechanical thrombectomy predicted the need for additional interventions to maintain patency. This explains the need to stratify which stenosis should undergo angioplasty.…”
Section: Vessel Injurymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Technical success was defined as a restoration of HD access flow and resolution of stenosis (<30% residual stenosis) without residual thrombus after the procedure. 13 We verified both the HD access survival rate and the re-intervention survival rate. The HD access survival period was defined as the duration from intervention to HD access loss, and if HD access survived, it was defined as the duration from intervention to death or the last follow-up.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 83%