A retrospective comparison analysis of results of drug-coated balloon versus plain balloon angioplasty in treatment of juxta-anastomotic de novo stenosis of radiocephalic arteriovenous fistulas

Comparison of Clinical Effectiveness and Safety of Drug-Coated Balloons versus Percutaneous Transluminal Angioplasty in Arteriovenous Fistulae: A Review of Systematic Reviews and Updated Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of drug-coated balloons (DCBs) compared with those of percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) for arteriovenous fistula (AVF) stenosis via a review of systematic reviews (SRs) and an update of the current meta-analysis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Literature was searched to retrieve SRs comparing DCBs and PTA for AVFs. A narrative review of SRs and pooled analysis were performed.

RESULTS

Eleven SRs were included. DCBs demonstrated favorable outcomes at 6 and 12 months compared with PTA, with improved patency in 7 SRs and a trend toward favorable outcomes without statistical significance in 3 SRs. Target lesion revascularization (TLR) was reported in 3 SRs; 2 reviews reported a significantly lower incidence in the DCB group than in the PTA group, whereas 1 review reported no significant differences at 12 months. Four studies reporting all-cause mortality revealed no significant difference between the 2 treatments. In the updated meta-analysis including 23 studies, DCBs demonstrated improved primary patency at 6 months (risk ratio [RR], 1.27; 95% CI, 1.07-1.50) and 12 months (RR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.19-1.55) and were associated with a lower incidence of TLR at 6 months (RR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.41-0.73) and 12 months (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.62-0.99). There was no difference in mortality between the 2 groups for 24 months.

CONCLUSIONS

A review of SRs and meta-analysis update revealed the consistent benefits of DCBs over PTA in treating AVFs in terms of primary patency and TLR. Compared with PTA, DCBs do not increase mortality risk.

Ranger™ paclitaxel-coated balloon versus conventional balloon angioplasty for treatment of failing arteriovenous fistulas and grafts in haemodialysis patients: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Aim was to compare the safety and patency efficacy outcomes between Ranger™ paclitaxel-coated balloon (PCB)- versus conventional balloon angioplasty (POBA) in the treatment of haemodialysis access-related conduit stenosis.

METHODS

Retrospective single-centre, multi-investigator, consecutive, double-arm comparative cohort study. About 130 end-stage renal failure Asian patients with dysfunctional arteriovenous fistula (AVF) or arteriovenous graft underwent PCB or POBA fistuloplasty between November 2018 and June 2020. All stenotic lesions were prepared with high pressure non-compliant balloon angioplasty prior to PCB angioplasty. All patients received at least one antiplatelet agent for 3 months duration post procedure.

RESULTS

Mean age was 66.0 ± 10 years and 79/130 (61%) were males. PCB arm (n = 65) versus POBA arm (n = 65). Majority were AVFs circuits (122/130, 94%). Main indication for intervention was dropping access flow (98/130, 76%). About 172 lesions were treated (56% POBA, 44% PCB), and the juxta-anastomosis (JAS) was the main target lesion (87/172, 51%). There were no significant differences in safety outcomes (30-day adverse events, access thrombosis, abandoned AVF and death) between treatment groups. Mean time to target lesion reintervention (TLR) was longer in PCB-treated lesions (7.1 ± 2.7 vs 5.8 ± 3.2 months, p = 0.03), especially amongst recurrent lesions (7.3 ± 2.4 vs 5.7 ± 3.2, p = 0.02). Mean time to circuit reintervention was also longer in PCB-treated circuits (6.9 ± 2.8 vs 5.8 ± 3.7months, p = 0.04). There were 16 deaths (12%), all attributed to patient's underlying comorbidities.

CONCLUSIONS

Fistuloplasty with Ranger™ PCB for failing arteriovenous circuits in end-stage renal failure patients, is a safe and efficacious modality compared to POBA in terms of longer freedom from TLR.

Drug-eluting balloon (DEB) versus plain old balloon angioplasty (POBA) in the treatment of failing dialysis access: A prospective randomized trial

Objective

To compare the efficacy of angioplasty using drug-eluting balloons (DEB) compared with plain old balloon angioplasty (POBA) to reduce the rate of restenosis.

Methods

This prospective, single-centre, single-blinded, 1:1 randomized, clinical trial enrolled patients that had primary or restenotic lesions in native upper extremity arteriovenous (AV) fistulas or at the graft-venous anastomosis. Patients were randomized to angioplasty with a POBA or a DEB. The primary effectiveness endpoints were freedom from target lesion revascularization (TLR) and functional status of access circuit at 12 months.

Results

A total of 42 (28 male, 14 female; age range, 42–83 years) patients were enrolled. Patients were followed for 12 months. No significant differences were detected between the POBA and DEB groups regarding total number of TLR procedures (31 versus 36, respectively), freedom from TLR (3 versus 4, respectively) and functional status of the access circuit at 12 months (14 of 20 patients [70%] versus 17 of 22 patients [77%], respectively).

Conclusion

This clinical trial did not demonstrate any significant differences between DEB angioplasty and standard balloon angioplasty when treating dysfunctional haemodialysis access.

Drug-Coated Balloons for the Dysfunctional Vascular Access: An Evidence-Based Road Map to Treatment and the Existing Obstacles

An underlying stenosis within the venous limb of a hemodialysis access circuit is the main etiology for graft and fistula dysfunction as well as other symptoms such as arm, breast, and neck swelling. Treatment options for both peripheral and central venous stenoses include plain old balloon angioplasty, angioplasty with drug-coated balloons, and stenting. This article discusses the current evidence for the use of drug-coated balloon angioplasty in this patient population.

Intimal Hyperplasia and Arteriovenous Fistula Failure: Looking Beyond Size Differences

The development of venous intimal hyperplasia (IH) has been historically associated with failure of arteriovenous fistulas (AVF) used for hemodialysis. This long-standing assumption, based on histological observations, has been recently challenged by clinical studies indicating that the size of the intima by itself is not enough to explain stenosis or AVF maturation failure. Irrespective of this lack of association, IH is present in most native veins and fistulas, is prominent in many cases, and suggests a role in the vein that may not be reflected by its dimensions. Therefore, the contribution of IH to AVF dysfunction remains controversial. Using only clinical data and avoiding extrapolations from animal models, we critically discuss the biological significance of IH in vein remodeling, vascular access function, and the response of the venous wall to repeated trauma in hemodialysis patients. We address questions and pose new ones such as: What are the factors that contribute to IH in pre-access veins and AVFs? Do cellular phenotypes and composition of the intima influence AVF function? Are there protective roles of the venous intima? This review explores these possibilities, with hopes of rekindling a critical discussion about venous IH that goes beyond thickness and AVF outcomes.

Drug-Coated Balloon for Arteriovenous Access Stenosis in Hemodialysis Patients

Hemodialysis access stenosis is a pervasive problem that occurs due to the physiology of the high-flow circuit. Stenosis occurs due to endothelial and smooth muscle injuries that result in neointimal hyperplasia. Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty is the standard treatment for dialysis access-induced stenosis. Unfortunately, it is also associated with vessel wall trauma, which causes further intimal hyperplasia and restenosis. Data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews of the use of drug-coated balloons (DCBs) for dialysis access stenosis have been controversial. While several single-center trials or RCTs have reported safe and effective use of DCBs, conflicting results still exist. Furthermore, paclitaxel is known to be associated with an increased mortality risk. Herein, we review the current evidence on the role of DCBs in the treatment of dialysis access stenosis.