A systematic review and meta-analysis of drug-coated balloon versus conventional balloon angioplasty for dialysis access stenosis

AbstractBackgroundArteriovenous fistulas for patients undergoing hemodialysis (HD) are at high risk of stenosis. Despite conventional balloon angioplasty (CBA), restenosis rates are high. The use of a drug-coated balloon (DCB) may offer an alternative to reduce restenosis. MethodsThis study has been...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of vascular surgery 2019-09, Vol.70 (3), p.970-979.e3
Hauptverfasser: Yan Wee, Ian Jun, Yap, Hao Yun, MBBS, MRCSEd (Surgery), MMed (Surgery), FRCSEd (Gen Surg), Hsien Ts'ung, Luke Tay, MBBS, MSc, MRCS, FRCS, Lee Qingwei, Shaun, MBBS, Tan, Chieh Suai, MBBS, Tang, Tjun Yip, MA (Cantab), MB BChir, MD, FRCS (Gen), FAMS, Chong, Tze Tec, MBBS, FACS (General and Vascular Surgery), RPVI
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:AbstractBackgroundArteriovenous fistulas for patients undergoing hemodialysis (HD) are at high risk of stenosis. Despite conventional balloon angioplasty (CBA), restenosis rates are high. The use of a drug-coated balloon (DCB) may offer an alternative to reduce restenosis. MethodsThis study has been performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. An electronic search on MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was performed to identify articles evaluating DCB angioplasty for patients with HD access stenosis. Risk ratios (RRs) of primary patency were pooled, and relevant subgroup and sensitivity analyses were conducted. ResultsThere were 17 studies (8 randomized controlled trials [RCTs], 9 cohort studies) included, comprising a total of 1113 stenotic dialysis accesses, of which 54.7% underwent DCB angioplasty and 45.3% underwent CBA. There was a significantly superior 6-month (RR, 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44-0.74; P < .00001; I2 = 62%) and 12-month (RR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.63-0.84; P < .0001; I2 = 53%) primary patency in the DCB angioplasty group in comparison to the CBA group (71.0% vs 49.2% at 6 months; 44.2% vs 20.6% at 12 months). Subgroup analyses of study design (RCTs, cohort studies) showed similar trends. Sensitivity analyses by excluding one poor-quality RCT and those employing the crossover analysis design also showed similar results. Studies investigating central venous stenosis showed significantly better 6-month (RR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.41-0.79; P = .0009; I2 = 67%) and 12-month (RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.56-0.85; P = .0004; I2 = 64%) primary patency in the DCB angioplasty group in comparison to the CBA group. The pooled rate of minor complications was low in both the DCB (1.1%) and CBA (0.9%) groups. ConclusionsDCB angioplasty appears to be a better and safe alternative to CBA in treating patients with HD stenosis in terms of 6- and 12-month primary patency. However, a larger trial is warranted to establish these findings.
ISSN:0741-5214
1097-6809
DOI:10.1016/j.jvs.2019.01.082