Primary Balloon Angioplasty Versus Hydrostatic Dilation for Arteriovenous Fistula Creation in Patients with Small-Caliber Cephalic Veins: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.

A Faculty Development Workshop for Planning and Implementing Interactive Virtual Case-Based Teaching.

Introduction: The virtual learning environment has become increasingly important due to physical distance requirements put in place during the COVID-19 pandemic. The transition to a virtual format has been challenging for case-based teaching sessions, which involve substantial audience participation. We developed a faculty development workshop aimed at teaching health professions educators how to use various interactive virtual tools within videoconferencing platforms to facilitate virtual case-based sessions. Methods: Two 90-minute workshops were piloted as a faculty development initiative. The facilitators demonstrated interactive teaching tools that could be used within virtual case-based sessions. Then, participants discussed how to incorporate these tools into case-based teaching sessions of different class sizes in small-group breakout sessions. Participants completed an online survey following each workshop to evaluate the sessions. Results: A total of 18 and 26 subjects participated in the first and second workshops, respectively. Survey response rates were 100% (n = 18) and 65% (n = 17) for the first and second workshops, respectively. Both groups provided overall high ratings and reported that the workshop was clear, organized, and relevant. Participants were more familiar and comfortable with the use of various interactive tools for online teaching. Discussion: Distance online teaching will be increasingly required for an undetermined time. Faculty development efforts are crucial to facilitate effective interactive teaching sessions that engage learners and maximize learning. This virtual teaching workshop is a simple and straightforward way to introduce a more interactive format to virtual case-based teaching in the health professions.

Comparison of forearm versus upper arm basilic transposition arteriovenous fistulas demonstrates equivalent satisfactory patency.

OBJECTIVE: In accordance with the Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative recommendations, attaining autogenous hemodialysis access, specifically via creation of radiocephalic arteriovenous fistulas (AVF), brachial-basilic (BB)-AVF, or brachial-cephalic AVFs, is preferred for mortality and morbidity benefits over catheter access in patients with end-stage renal disease. The aim of this study is to determine the suitability of forearm basilic vein transposition (FBVT) fistulas as an alternative access option by comparing outcomes with those of BB-AVFs. METHODS: All patients who underwent creation of FBVT between 2007 and 2015 were identified retrospectively in the electronic medical record and compared with a sample of patients undergoing BB-AVF placement during this time. Access patency was examined using Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: We included 34 patients with FBVT (median age, 54 years; 67.6% male) and 49 with BB-AVF (median age, 57 years; 42.9% male) in this study. There were no significant differences in comorbid conditions between the two groups, with the exception of hyperlipidemia (29.4% FBVT vs 53.1% BB-AVF; P = .03). Although those with FBVT were more likely to have had previous permanent access attempts (70.6% vs 38.7%; P = .002), and access attempts on the same extremity (44.1% vs 24.4%; P = .04), there were no significant differences in primary patency (46.9% vs 53.3%; P = .6), primary-assisted patency (65.6% vs 73.3%; P = .5), or secondary patency (68.8% vs 82.2%; P = .2) at 1 year when compared with BB-AVF. The risk of loss of patency was not statistically different for FBVT as compared with BB-AVF (hazard ratio, 1.37; 95% confidence interval 0.65-2.88; P = .4). This risk did not vary for those who had previous access on the same arm (interaction P = .8). Four fistulas in each group failed to mature. Only one infectious complication was identified in the FBVT group. CONCLUSIONS: No prior studies have directly compared outcomes of FBVTs with BB-AVFs at 1 year or longer. Despite the increased difficulty of harvesting the forearm basilic vein, particularly in patients who have had prior access attempts, there was no significant difference in patency between FBVTs and BB-AVFs. FBVTs are a reasonable option for hemodialysis access, particularly in patients without adequate cephalic veins or who previously failed radiocephalic fistula attempts.

Hispanic ethnicity is associated with increased costs after carotid endarterectomy and carotid stenting in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: We have previously demonstrated an adverse impact of black race and Hispanic ethnicity on the outcomes of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS). The current study was undertaken to examine the influence of race and ethnicity on the cost of CEA and CAS. METHODS: The Nationwide Inpatient Sample (2005-2009) was queried using ICD-9 codes for CEA and CAS in patients with carotid artery stenosis. The primary outcome was total hospital charges. Multivariate analysis was performed using a generalized linear model adjusting for age, sex, race, comorbidities (Charlson index), high-risk status, procedure type, symptomatic status, year, insurance type, and surgeon and hospital operative volumes and characteristics. RESULTS: Hispanic and black patients were more likely to have a symptomatic presentation, and were more likely to undergo either CEA or CAS by low-volume surgeons at low-volume hospitals (P < 0.05, all). They were also less likely to have private insurance or Medicare (P < 0.001). Overall, CEA was less expensive than CAS over the 4-y study period ($29,502 ± $104 versus $46,713 ± $409, P < 0.001). Total hospital charges after CEA were increased in both blacks ($39,562 ± $843) and Hispanics ($45,325 ± $735) compared with whites on univariate analysis ($28,403 ± $101, P < 0.001). After CAS, total hospital charges were similarly increased in both blacks ($51,770 ± $2085) and Hispanics ($63,637 ± $2766) compared with whites on univariate analysis ($45,550 ± $412, P < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, however, only Hispanic ethnicity remained independently associated with increased charges after both CEA (exponentiated coefficient 1.18; 95% CI [1.15-1.20]; P < 0.001) and CAS (exponentiated coefficient 1.17; 95% CI [1.09-1.24]; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Hispanic ethnicity was independently associated with increased hospital charges after both CEA and CAS. The increased charges seen in black patients were explained, in part, by decreased surgeon operative volume and increased postoperative complications. Further efforts are warranted to contain costs in minorities undergoing carotid revascularization.

Comparing the embolic potential of open and closed cell stents during carotid angioplasty and stenting.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the effects of open (O) and closed (C) cell stents on the size and number of embolic particles generated during carotid artery stenting (CAS) and assess the impact on outcome. METHODS: Embolic debris from carotid filters after CAS was analyzed using photomicroscopy and imaging software. Patient comorbidities, preoperative cerebrovascular symptoms, stent type, and outcomes (perioperative major adverse events) were examined. RESULTS: Carotid filters from 173 consecutive CAS procedures (O, 125 and C, 48) were reviewed. The mean age was 70.9 ± 9.2 years; 58% were men. Mean stenosis was 88.2% ± 8.1%; 36.6% had neurological symptoms preprocedurally. There was no difference in preoperative symptoms between the two groups (O, 38.7% vs C, 31.3%; P = not significant [NS]). However, closed cell stent use was associated with higher degree of stenosis (O, 87.2% ± 8.0% vs C, 90.6% ± 7.8%; P = .01), an older age (O, 70.0 ± 8.6 years vs C, 73.4 ± 10.2 years; P = .03), and peripheral arterial disease (21.1% vs 43.5%; P = .01). A larger mean particle size was observed in patients treated with open cell stents compared to closed cell stents (O, 416.5 ± 335.7 µm vs C, 301.1 ± 251.3 µm; P = .03). There was no significant difference in the total number of particles (O, 13.8 ± 21.5 vs C, 17.6 ± 19.9; P = NS), periprocedural stroke (P = NS), and major adverse events between the two groups (P = NS). CONCLUSIONS: Open cell stents are associated with a larger mean particle size compared to closed cell stents. No impact on procedural outcomes based on stent type was observed.