RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Endovascular intervention for thrombosed aneurysmal arteriovenous fistula (AVF) is still a challenge. Manual compression technique (MCT)-assisted angioplasty may be helpful, but there is no evidence or data to support it. METHODS: From January 2018 to May 2021, patients with thrombosed aneurysmal AVFs were retrospectively enrolled. The patients were separated into the MCT group or the traditional group according to the procedure received. Technical failure, clinical failure, 90-day patency, and safety were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 159 cases (64 ± 12 years old, 60% male) were enrolled, of which 87 cases received MCT and 72 underwent traditional angioplasty. No technical failure was observed in the MCT group, while five technical failures were observed in the traditional group (0% vs. 7%, p = 0.02). There were no differences in the clinical failure rate (3% vs. 7%, p = 0.30), 90-day patency rate, or procedure time between the MCT group and the traditional group. There was no symptomatic pulmonary embolism or other complication in the two groups. CONCLUSION: MCT is a low-cost, less invasive, and safe procedure for thrombosed aneurysmal AVF, and it achieves a higher technical success rate than traditional angioplasty.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Vascular access dysfunction is a great burden for hemodialysis patients. Early intervention of a dysfunctional arteriovenous shunt is associated with higher technical success and may improve midterm patency. This trial aimed to estimate the feasibility of a new system, the "rapid intervention team" (RIT) strategy. METHODS: We recruited hemodialysis patients who visited our hospital because of arteriovenous shunt dysfunction or failure to undergo an RIT strategy from September 1, 2019 to December 31, 2022. In addition, we included a control group comprising patients who underwent percutaneous intervention for arteriovenous shunt dysfunction or failure before this strategy was implemented from February 1, 2017 to December 31, 2022. Case number, time to intervention, all-cause mortality, cumulative survival rate, and number of patients who required temporary dialysis catheter insertion and recreation were compared between the two groups. The primary endpoints were double-lumen insertion, a composite outcome involving permanent catheter insertion, and the need for recreation. The secondary endpoint was all-cause mortality. RESULTS: We enrolled 1054 patients, including 544 (51.6%) and 510 (48.4%) in the RIT and control groups, respectively. Even with the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the number of cases significantly increased after the implementation of the RIT strategy (from 216 in 2019 to 828 in 2022, p for trend <0.001). The RIT group had a shortened time to intervention ( p for trend <0.001). The implementation of the RIT strategy was significantly associated with a reduced risk of insertion of a temporary double-lumen catheter and recreation of vascular access (1% vs 6% and 1% vs 28%, respectively; both p < 0.01). The cumulative survival rate was not significantly different between the RIT and control groups ( p = 0.16). CONCLUSION: The implementation of the RIT strategy improves the quantity and quality of percutaneous transluminal intervention for arteriovenous shunt dysfunction or failure in patients undergoing hemodialysis.