Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.
Department of Surgery, MedStar Health Baltimore, Baltimore, MD.
Ann Vasc Surg. 2022 Nov;87:351-361. doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2022.07.025. Epub 2022 Aug 24.
For arteriovenous fistula (AVF) presence of a venous segment with adequate diameter is essential which is lacking in many patients. To find the optimal augmentation technique in patients with small-caliber cephalic vein (i.e., cephalic vein diameter <3 mm), studies compared primary balloon angioplasty (PBA) versus hydrostatic dilation (HD); however, it remained debatable. This systematic review seeks to determine which technique is preferable.
We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar. Primary outcomes were 6-month primary patency, reintervention, and working AVF. Secondary outcomes were immediate success, the AVF's maturation time (day), and surgical site infection.
Three randomized controlled trials yielding 180 patients were included, of which 89 patients were in the PBA group. The odds ratio (OR) of primary patency was significantly higher in the PBA group (OR 6.09, 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.36-15.76, P = 0.0002), the OR of reintervention was significantly lower in the PBA group (OR 0.16, 95% CI, 0.06-0.42, P = 0.0002), and the OR of working AVF was greater in PBA group (OR 4.22, 95% CI, 1.31-13.59, P = 0.02). The OR of immediate success was significantly greater in the PBA group (OR 11.42, 95% CI, 2.54-51.42, P = 0.002), and the AVF maturation time was significantly shorter in patients who underwent PBA (mean difference -20.32 days, 95% CI, -30.12 to -10.52, P = 0.0001). The certainty of the evidence was high.
PBA of small cephalic veins with diameter ≤2.5 cm is a safe, feasible, and efficacious augmentation method for AVF creation. This technique achieves favorable maturation outcomes, and PBA is superior to the standard hydrostatic dilatation technique.
动静脉瘘(AVF)的形成需要有足够直径的静脉段,然而很多患者的静脉段都不够理想。为了找到治疗小口径头静脉(即头静脉直径<3mm)患者的最佳增强技术,研究比较了原发性球囊血管成形术(PBA)与水压扩张术(HD);然而,这一问题仍存在争议。本系统评价旨在确定哪种技术更优。
我们检索了 MEDLINE、PubMed、Embase 和 Google Scholar。主要结局为 6 个月时的初始通畅率、再干预和工作动静脉瘘。次要结局为即刻成功率、动静脉瘘成熟时间(天)和手术部位感染。
纳入了 3 项随机对照试验,共 180 例患者,其中 89 例患者接受了 PBA 治疗。PBA 组的初始通畅率的优势比(OR)显著更高(OR 6.09,95%置信区间[CI],2.36-15.76,P=0.0002),再干预的 OR 显著更低(OR 0.16,95%CI,0.06-0.42,P=0.0002),工作动静脉瘘的 OR 也更大(OR 4.22,95%CI,1.31-13.59,P=0.02)。PBA 组的即刻成功率的 OR 显著更高(OR 11.42,95%CI,2.54-51.42,P=0.002),且接受 PBA 治疗的患者的动静脉瘘成熟时间更短(平均差值-20.32 天,95%CI,-30.12 至-10.52,P=0.0001)。证据的确定性为高。
对于直径≤2.5cm 的小口径头静脉,PBA 是一种安全、可行且有效的动静脉瘘形成增强方法。该技术可获得良好的成熟效果,且优于标准水压扩张技术。