RESUMEN
PURPOSE: To compare patency and reintervention outcomes after either plain old balloon angioplasty (POBA) or drug-coated balloon angioplasty (DCBA) for venous stenoses after percutaneous arteriovenous fistula (pAVF) creation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One-hundred ninety-five pAVFs were successfully created during the study period, 141 using Ellipsys and 54 using Wavelinq. After pAVF creation, 95 patients (48.7%) required secondary percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) with either POBA (n = 55, 58%) or DCBA (n = 40, 42.1%). The most common site for PTA was the juxta-anastomotic segment (75.5%; 74/98). Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were used to compare target lesion primary patency, access circuit primary patency, secondary patency, and reintervention rates in the POBA and DCBA cohorts. RESULTS: Thirty-four of 55 (62%) patients in the POBA cohort and 14 of 40 (35%) patients in the DCBA cohort required reinterventions for pAVF restenosis. Mean number of follow-up days among patients treated with POBA was 1,030.4 (SD ± 342.9) and among those treated with DCBA was 744.4 (SD ± 403.5). The use of POBA compared with DCBA was not associated with target lesion and access circuit primary patency loss in multivariate analysis (hazard ratio [HR], 1.81; 95% CI, 0.93-3.51; P = .080; and HR, 1.77; 95% CI, 0.73-4.28; P = .210, respectively). However, time from fistula creation to the first PTA (days) was statistically significantly associated with both outcomes (HR, 0.997; 95% CI, 0.994-0.999; P = .009; and HR, 0.997; 95% CI, 0.992-0.999; P = .021, respectively). There were no major adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective single-center analysis of pAVFs, considerably more patients who underwent PTA with POBA after pAVF creation required reinterventions compared with PTA using DCBA, although the follow-up time of POBA was longer. In multivariate analysis, no differences were noted in the hazard of patency loss between POBA and DCBA.