Suppr超能文献

使用外周切割球囊治疗血液透析相关狭窄。

Use of the peripheral cutting balloon to treat hemodialysis-related stenoses.

作者信息

Vesely Thomas M, Siegel Jeffrey B

出版信息

J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2005 Dec;16(12):1593-603. doi: 10.1097/01.RVI.0000190928.19701.DD.

Abstract

PURPOSE

To compare the effectiveness and safety of use of the peripheral cutting balloon (PCB) versus standard percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) for the treatment of hemodialysis-related stenoses.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective, randomized multicenter clinical trial included 340 patients with stenotic or thrombosed hemodialysis grafts who were randomized to receive treatment with the PCB or PTA for venous outflow stenosis. One hundred seventy-three patients underwent treatment with the PCB, 101 with stenotic grafts and 72 with thrombosed grafts. PTA was used to treat 167 patients, 94 patients with stenotic grafts and 73 with thrombosed grafts. The follow-up period extended for 6 months.

RESULTS

The procedural success rates were 80.8% and 75.4% for the PCB and PTA groups, respectively (P = .24). With use of the PCB, the primary patency rates of the target lesions were 84.3%, 65.8%, and 47.9% at 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months, respectively. With PTA, the primary patency rates of the target lesions were 77.7%, 63.4%, and 40.5% at 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months, respectively. The primary patency rates of the entire vascular access circuit were 82.6%, 61.0%, and 43.3% at 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months, respectively, with use of the PCB. For patients who were treated with PTA, the primary patency rates of the vascular access circuit were 75.9%, 61.0%, and 36.3% at 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months, respectively. When comparing the PCB and PTA, there was no difference in the 6-month primary patency rates in the target lesion (P = .373) or the entire vascular access circuit (P = .531). There were nine device-related complications in the PCB group (5.2%): five venous ruptures (2.9%), three venous dissections (1.7%), and one case of thrombosis (0.6%). There were no device-related complications in the PTA group.

CONCLUSION

This prospective, randomized trial comparing use of the PCB versus standard PTA for treatment of hemodialysis-related venous stenoses demonstrated that the PCB provides equivalent 6-month patency to PTA for stenotic and thrombosed grafts.

摘要

目的

比较使用外周切割球囊(PCB)与标准经皮腔内血管成形术(PTA)治疗血液透析相关狭窄的有效性和安全性。

材料与方法

这项前瞻性、随机多中心临床试验纳入了340例患有狭窄或血栓形成的血液透析移植物的患者,他们被随机分配接受PCB或PTA治疗静脉流出道狭窄。173例患者接受了PCB治疗,其中101例为狭窄移植物患者,72例为血栓形成移植物患者。167例患者接受了PTA治疗,其中94例为狭窄移植物患者,73例为血栓形成移植物患者。随访期延长至6个月。

结果

PCB组和PTA组的手术成功率分别为80.8%和75.4%(P = 0.24)。使用PCB时,目标病变的1个月、3个月和6个月的初次通畅率分别为84.3%、65.8%和47.9%。使用PTA时,目标病变的1个月、3个月和6个月的初次通畅率分别为77.7%、63.4%和40.5%。使用PCB时,整个血管通路的1个月、3个月和6个月的初次通畅率分别为82.6%、61.0%和43.3%。接受PTA治疗的患者,血管通路的1个月、3个月和6个月的初次通畅率分别为75.9%、61.0%和36.3%。比较PCB和PTA时,目标病变(P = 0.373)或整个血管通路(P = 0.531)的6个月初次通畅率没有差异。PCB组有9例与器械相关的并发症(5.2%):5例静脉破裂(2.9%)、3例静脉夹层(1.7%)和1例血栓形成(0.6%)。PTA组没有与器械相关的并发症。

结论

这项比较使用PCB与标准PTA治疗血液透析相关静脉狭窄的前瞻性、随机试验表明,对于狭窄和血栓形成的移植物,PCB在6个月时的通畅率与PTA相当。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验