Midterm outcomes of arteriovenous fistula aneurysm repair with simultaneous inflow revision or outflow tract revascularization.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the 2-year outcomes of extensive revisions aimed at simultaneously addressing arteriovenous fistula (AVF) aneurysms, outflow stenosis, and/or high flow volumes. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study in a tertiary referral center. The study population comprised hemodialysis patients with aneurysmal AVFs requiring revision. Subjects were eligible if they were ≥18 years of age and had aneurysm repair associated with inflow revision or treatment of outflow lesions. Patients were followed-up for a minimum of 2 years, and the primary outcome measure was cumulative patency. RESULTS: Our cohort comprised 93 patients with a mean age of 56 ± 12 years. The most frequent access type was brachiocephalic fistula (61%), and the median access age at the time of revision was 66 months (interquartile range, 46-93 months). The median access flow volume was 2300 ml/min (interquartile range, 1281-2900), and 31 subjects (33%) presented aneurysms associated with both high flow and venous obstruction. Aneurysm repair consisted of aneurysmorraphy in the overwhelming majority (95%). Inflow revision was performed in a total of 49 cases (53%), and outflow tract obstruction was treated in 71 patients (72%), with 27 patients (29%) receiving a simultaneous 3-component revision. At 2 years, the primary, primary assisted, and cumulative patencies were 60% ± 1%, 91% ± 3%, and 94% ± 3%, respectively. The most frequent indication for first-time reinterventions was outflow tract stenosis (24%). Aneurysm recurrence was observed in 13 subjects (14%) during the entire follow-up and was responsible for reinterventions in seven of them (8%), with a 2-year freedom from aneurysm-related reintervention rate of 95% ± 3%. CONCLUSIONS: Extensive AVF revision with simultaneous aneurysm repair, inflow revision, and outflow tract revascularization is feasible, safe, and associated with favorable 2-year patency rates.

Contemporary review of management techniques for cephalic arch stenosis in hemodialysis.

The type of hemodialysis access and its preservation impact the quality of life and survival of patients undergoing hemodialysis. Vascular access complications are among the top causes of morbidity, hospitalization, and catheter use, with significant economic burden. Poor maturation and stenosis continue to be key impediments to upper arm arteriovenous fistula feasibility. Cephalic arch is a common location for vascular access dysfunction due to its distinctive anatomy, complex valves, and biochemical alterations attributable to renal failure. Understanding cephalic arch stenosis is critical due to its high prevalence and treatment failure. The appropriate management option is highly debatable and mostly dependent on patient characteristics and interventionist's preference. Current options include, percutaneous transluminal balloon angioplasty, stent grafts, bare metal stents, cutting balloon angioplasty, endovascular banding, and surgical procedures. This article discusses the etiologies of cephalic arch stenosis as well as currents trends in management including endovascular and surgical options.

Cephalic arch restenosis rates in hemodialysis patients with brachiocephalic fistulae: a retrospective multicenter analysis of 3301 patients.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated restenosis rates at the cephalic arch after percutaneous angioplasty and stenting procedures in patients with brachial artery to cephalic vein arteriovenous fistula (BCAVF) hemodialysis access. METHODS: We used data from adult hemodialysis patients treated at a national network of 44 outpatient interventional facilities during Oct 2011-2015. We included data from patients with BCAVF who received an exclusive angioplasty, or stent with angioplasty, for treatment of cephalic arch stenosis and had ≥1 subsequent evaluation of the cephalic arch. Median percent restenosis per month at cephalic arch and days between encounters was calculated from the 1st index to 2nd procedure, and for up to 4 subsequent encounters. Analyses were stratified by intervention and device types. RESULTS: We identified a cohort of 3301 patients (mean age 62.2 ± 13.9 years, 58.5% male, 33.2% white race) with a BCAVF who had an angioplasty, or stent, at the cephalic arch for an index and ≥ 1 follow-up procedure. Between the 1st index to 2nd procedure, patients who received an angioplasty (n = 2663) or stent (n = 933) showed a median decrease of 18.9 and 16.5% in luminal diameter per month and a median time of 93 and 91 days between encounters, respectively. Restenosis and day rates were similar for standard versus high-pressure angioplasties. Bare metal stents showed 10.1 percentage point higher restenosis rate compared to stent grafts. Restenosis rates and time to restenosis were relatively consistent across subsequent encounters. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest hemodialysis patients with a BCAVF who require an angioplasty or stent to treat a stenosis at the cephalic arch will have stenosis reformed at a rate of 18.9 and 16.5% per month after the first intervention, respectively. Findings suggest patients are at risk of having significant lesions at the cephalic arch within 3 months after the previous intervention.

Arteriovenous Fistulas and Their Characteristic Sites of Stenosis.

OBJECTIVE: In the United States, more than 250,000 patients with end-stage renal disease are dialyzed through arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs). The three most common AVFs are the radiocephalic fistula, the brachiocephalic fistula, and the brachial artery-to-transposed basilic vein fistula. Although many potential access site stenoses can and do occur within any given fistula, each fistula has a characteristic site of stenosis. This article will discuss the characteristic site of stenosis for each type of fistula including the effects of stenosis at that site on fistula function, and their treatment. CONCLUSION: The characteristic sites of stenosis in AVFs used for dialysis share in common significant angulation, which likely causes stenosis by leading to turbulent flow and intimal injury. While balloon dilation is considered first-line therapy, further interventions such as stent placement or surgical revision are sometimes needed to treat these recalcitrant areas of stenosis.

Cephalic arch stenosis: angioplasty to preserve a brachiocephalic fistula or new brachiobasilic fistula? A cost-effectiveness study.

BACKGROUND: Our aim was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of repeat angioplasty versus new brachiobasilic fistula (BBF) in patients with symptomatic cephalic arch stenosis (CAS). METHODS: Patients presenting with symptomatic CAS (n = 22) underwent angioplasty. They were compared to patients undergoing BBF creation (n = 51). Primary outcomes were functional primary arteriovenous fistulae patency at 3, 6 and 12 months. Data were collected on number of interventions, alternative accesses and hospital days for access-related complications. Quality of life was assessed using Kidney Disease Quality of Life-36 scores. Decision tree, Monte Carlo simulation and sensitivity analysis permitted cost-utility analysis. Healthcare costs were derived from Department of Health figures and are presented as cost (£)/patient/year, cost/access preserved and cost/quality of life-adjusted year (QALY) for each of the treatment strategies. RESULTS: Functional primary patency rates at 3, 6, 12 months were 87.5%, 81% and 43% for repeated angioplasty and 78%, 63% and 41% for BBF. The angioplasty cohort required 1.64 ± 0.23 angioplasties/patient and 0.64 ± 0.34 lines/patient. BBF required 0.36 ± 0.12 angioplasties/patient and 1.2 ± 0.2 lines/patient. Patients in the BBF cohort spent an additional 0.9 days/year in hospital due to access-related complications. Mean cost/patient/year in the angioplasty group was £5247.72/patient/year versus £3807.55/patient/year in the BBF cohort. Mean cost per access saved was £11,544.98 (angioplasty) versus £4979.10 (BBF). Average cost per QALY was £13,809.79 (angioplasty) versus £10,878.72 per QALY (BBF). CONCLUSIONS: CAS poses a difficult management problem with poor outcomes from conventional angioplasty. Optimal management will depend on patient factors, local outcomes and expertise, but consideration should be given to creation of a new BBF as a cost-effective means to manage this difficult problem.

Cephalic arch stenosis: an analysis of outcome by type of first intervention.

BACKGROUND: Cephalic arch stenoses (CAS) occur in near 70% of elbow arteriovenous fistulas. Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) remains first-line treatment despite documented stent-grafts (SG) efficacy. The study aim is to report long-term outcomes based on initial treatment of CAS. METHODS: Retrospective review of 12-year data in single tertiary centre. Outcomes included technical success, rupture rate, primary patency (PP), dialysis performance; categorical variables assessed via χ2 or Fisher's; nonparametric tests used for skewed data. Kaplan-Meier analysis used for PP and cumulative patency. Cox proportional hazard regression model to assess explanatory variables in PP. RESULTS: One hundred one brachio- and radiocephalic fistulas with CAS were included. SG as first intervention had higher success than PTA (85% vs 61%, p = 0.003). Rupture occurred in 9/85 (10.6%) PTA vs 0% in SG (p = 0.046). In a subgroup with poor urea reduction rate (URR), both PTA and SG improved dialysis performance post-intervention (p = 0.002). SG demonstrated better PP than PTA (79,73,60% patency at 3, 6, 9 months; versus 71,51,47%; p = 0.195) and cumulative patency (73,61,61% at 1, 2, 3 years; versus 60,34,26%; p < 0.001). Of the variables analyzed, technical success of PTA was the only discriminating factor (coeff.-1.01; RR 35%, p = 0.035). Accesses that underwent secondary stenting performed better than primarily stented CAS (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: SG superiority is confirmed in CAS, particularly when angioplasty is unsuccessful. While PTA has short-lived benefits, it can improve dialysis performance. Other than higher success rate, primary CAS stenting did not have advantages compared to post-PTA stenting in our study. Other factors related to inflow, outflow, conduit characteristics are presumed to be involved in access longevity.

Outcomes of Surgical and Endovascular Treatment for Cephalic Arch Stenosis in Proximal Arteriovenous Fistula.

Purpose: The cephalic arch is a significant site of stenosis in proximal arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs) that contributes to access dysfunction and thrombosis. This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes of surgical treatment (ST) and endovascular treatment (ET) for cephalic arch stenosis (CAS). Materials and Methods: A total of 62 patients with proximal AVF who underwent CAS revision using either ST or ET were enrolled between January 2018 and March 2023. In the ET group, only the initial ET following AVF formation was considered, to mitigate bias. In the ST group, central transposition of the native AVF (transposition group) or interposition of the prosthetic graft into the proximal basilic or axillary vein (interposition group) was performed. We evaluated primary and functional patency based on these groups and calculated the number of patency loss events after CAS treatment. Results: Of the 62 patients, 38 (61%) were male, with a mean age of 66.4 years. ST was performed in 26 (42%) patients, including transposition in 16 and interposition in 10, whereas ET was administered to 36 patients during the study period. Among the ST recipients, 42% had a history of ET for CAS. The incidence of AVF thrombosis was marginally higher in the ST group than in the ET group (39% vs. 19%, P=0.098). The primary patency rates at 6 months, 1 year, and 3 years were 87%, 87%, and 66% in the transposition group; 45%, 23%, and 11% in the interposition group; and 66%, 49%, and 17% in the ET group, respectively. Notably, the primary patency of the transposition group was significantly higher than that of the interposition (P=0.001) and ET groups (P=0.016). The frequency of patency loss events per person-year after the initial revision was 0.40, 0.52, and 1.42 in the transposition, interposition, and ET groups, respectively. Conclusion: Transposition exhibited the most favorable primary patency rate and the lowest number of subsequent patency loss events during follow-up despite the higher rates of AVF thrombosis and previous ET at presentation. Consequently, transposition should be actively considered in eligible patients with CAS.

ASDIN white paper: Management of cephalic arch stenosis endorsed by the American Society of Diagnostic and Interventional Nephrology.

Brachiocephalic arteriovenous fistulas (AVF) makeup approximately one third of prevalent dialysis vascular accesses. The most common cause of malfunction with this access is cephalic arch stenosis (CAS). The accepted requirement for treatment of a venous stenosis lesion is ⩾50% stenosis associated with hemodynamically abnormalities. However, the correlation between percentage stenosis and a clinically significant decrease in access blood flow (Qa) is low. The critical parameter is the absolute minimal luminal diameter (MLD) of the lesion. This is the parameter that exerts the key restrictive effect on Qa and results in hemodynamic and functional implications for the access. CAS is the result of low wall shear stress (WSS) resulting from the effects of increased blood flow and the unique anatomical configuration of the CAS. Decrease in WSS has a linear relationship to increased blood flow velocity and neointimal hyperplasia exhibits an inverse relationship with WSS. The result is a stenotic lesion. The presence of downstream venous stenosis causes an inflow-outflow mismatch resulting in increased pressure within the access. Qa in this situation may be decreased, increased, or within a normal range. Over time, the increased intraluminal pressure can result in marked aneurysmal changes within the AVF, difficulties with cannulation and the dialysis treatment, and ultimately, increasing risk of access thrombosis. Complete characterization of the lesion both hemodynamically and anatomically should be the first step in developing a strategy for management. This requires both access flow measurement and angiographic imaging. Patients with CAS present a relatively broad spectrum as relates to both of these parameters. These data should be used to determine whether primary treatment of CAS should be directed toward the anatomical lesion (small MLD and low Qa) or the pathophysiology (large MLD and high Qa).

Salvage of a megafistula causing high-output cardiac failure in a young adult with aneurysmorrhaphy and banding.

We present the case of a 21-year-old male with significant lengthening and aneurysmal degeneration of his brachiocephalic arteriovenous fistula resulting in a megafistula and high-output cardiac failure. A computed tomography angiogram showed narrowing at the cephalic arch. Further evaluation during the operation revealed kinking and elongation of the fistula in addition to compression of the cephalic arch in the deltopectoral groove leading to outflow obstruction. The aneurysmal fistula was treated successfully with aneurysmorrhaphy of the remaining conduit and banding of the inflow. This case demonstrates a unique etiology of venous outflow obstruction for a fistula and describes the surgical approach to its treatment in a young patient suffering from cardiac failure.

Cephalic arch stenosis in the arteriovenous fistula: A retrospective analysis of predisposing factors.

BACKGROUND: Cephalic Arch Stenosis (CAS) is a frequently observed complication in brachiocephalic and radiocephalic arteriovenous fistulae (AVF) associated with high morbidity and healthcare expenditure. The predisposing factors and preventative strategies for CAS remain unclear. Our aim was to examine predisposing factors for CAS development in the AVF. METHODS: A retrospective case-control study was performed at Gold University Coast Hospital on patients with AVFs created from 2009 to 2018 with ⩾18 months follow-up. CAS was defined as a >50% narrowing on angiographic assessment with clinically significant symptoms (dialysis dysfunction, arm swelling, prolonged bleeding after access). RESULTS: About 187 patients with AVF were included in the analysis (36 brachiocephalic, 151 radiocephalic). CAS developed in 22 of 36 (61%) of brachiocephalic AVF and 9 of 151 (6%) of radiocephalic AVFs. Brachiocephalic AVF were ⩾12 times more likely to develop CAS than radiocephalic AVF (Hazard Ratio (HR) 12.7, 95% CI [5.6-28.3], p < 0.001). Each 1 mL/min increase in flow rate through the AVF, correlated with a 0.07% increase in the probability of development of CAS (HR 1.0007, 95% CI [1.0001-1.0012], p = 0.011). Brachiocephalic AVFs with CAS were associated with a higher number of interventional procedures per access-year compared with their non-CAS counterparts (Median [Interquartile range]: 1.76 [0.74, 3.97] vs 0.41 [0.27, 0.67], p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: Brachiocephalic AVF with higher access flow rates are more likely to develop CAS and earlier than radiocephalic AVF, and in a dose dependent fashion. AVF flow rate is a major factor in CAS development within brachiocephalic AVF and has potential utility in surveillance thresholds for prophylactic blood flow reduction procedures. AVFs with CAS are associated with a greater number of interventional procedures per access-year, heralding higher patient morbidity and healthcare expenditure. Further prospective studies will help define an AVF access flow rate threshold in the implementation of prophylactic strategies for CAS.

Treatment for cephalic arch stenosis with cephalic vein to external jugular vein bridging graft.

AIM: Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty or cephalic vein transposition to the axillary vein is mainly used for treatment of cephalic arch stenosis, a common complication of brachiocephalic fistulas. However, the results of such interventions have been disappointing. METHODS: We used a polytetrafluoroethylene prosthesis with a 6 mm diameter to bridge the cephalic vein and the ipsilateral external jugular vein, and successfully created a new drainage outlet and established immediate restoration of flow through brachiocephalic fistulas. RESULTS: This surgery allowed the cephalic venous arch and subclavian vein, which are vulnerable to stenosis, to be bypassed altogether and the puncture segment could be elongated by about 20 cm. CONCLUSION: It is a safe and effective alternative to traditional methods of treatment for cephalic arche stenosis.

Computational modeling of the cephalic arch with jugulocephalic vein variant predicts hemodynamic profiles in patients with brachiocephalic fistula.

BACKGROUND: The cephalic vein is often used in for arteriovenous fistula creation; however, the cephalic vein variation is common. This study will propose new theoretical explanations for a new discovered variation of cephalic vein draining into external jugular vein with "T-junction" shape by means of 3D computational hemodynamic modeling, which may provide reference for clinical practice. METHODS: The precise measurements were conducted for the variant right cephalic vein draining into external jugular vein and for a normal right cephalic vein as a control. After processing the anatomical data, 3D geometrical model was reconstructed. Then, the influent field inside the variant jugulocephalic vein was mathematically modeled to get a detailed description of hemodynamic environment. RESULTS: The anatomical parameters of the "T-junction" jugulocephalic vein variant were much more different from the normal right cephalic vein. The wall shear stress of variant cephalic vein at the corresponding position was higher and changed more rapidly than that of normal cephalic vein. The shear rate contour lines are disordered in several areas of the variant cephalic vein, indicating that the hemodynamic parameters in these areas are unstable. The hemodynamic characteristics at the confluence of the variant cephalic vein are more complex, with more areas where hemodynamic parameters are disrupted. CONCLUSIONS: The variation of cephalic arch in a "T-junction" with external jugular vein largely altered the fluid dynamics, especially in hemodialysis patients with brachiocephalic fistula in terms of the simulating flow in 3D computational model. This computational model provides hemodynamic profiles for stabilizing or modulating fluid dynamics in patients with jugulocephalic vein variant after brachiocephalic fistula.

Use of the helical SUPERA™ stent and Passeo-18 Lux™ drug-coated balloon to treat recurrent cephalic arch stenosis for dysfunctional brachiocephalic fistulas: 1 year results of the Arch V SUPERA-LUX study.

BACKGROUND: Aim of Arch V SUPERA-LUX was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the combination therapy of SUPERA™ (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA) helical stent implantation and Passeo-18 Lux™ (Biotronik Asia Pacific Pte Ltd, Singapore) drug coated balloon (DCB) elution to treat recurrent cephalic arch stenosis (CAS) in the setting of AV access dysfunction. METHODS: Investigator-initiated, single-center, single-arm prospective pilot study of 20 end-stage renal failure Asian patients with a dysfunctional brachiocephalic fistula. All had symptomatic recurrent CAS within 6 months of prior intervention. The lesion was pre-dilated with a standard high-pressure balloon (Biotronik Passeo-35 HP balloon). The DCB (Passeo-18 Lux™) is subsequently inflated and the SUPERA™ stent deployed to sit 2 mm distal to the cephalic arch and covering the CAS but within the DCB zone. All patients were prescribed dual antiplatelet therapy for 3 months and followed up with Duplex ultrasound at 6- and 12-months. RESULTS: There were 9 (45%) males and mean age was 67 ± 11.0 years. Mean time from prior procedure was 113 ± 68 days and main indication for reintervention was high venous pressure (9/20, 45%). Technical success was 100% and there were no peri-procedural complications related to either stent or DCB deployment. Target lesion primary patency at 6- and 12-months was 10/18 (55%) and 5/16 (31%), respectively. Mean time to target lesion re-intervention was 170 ± 82 days. Circuit access patency was 8/18 (44%) and 2/16 (13%) at 6- and 12-months respectively and mortality was 3/20 (15%) attributed to the patients' underlying co-morbidities. CONCLUSION: Dual prong strategy of using SUPERA™ stenting and Passeo-18 Lux™ drug elution for recurrent CAS, although safe, was no more efficacious than conventional balloon angioplasty or stenting alone. Development of an intense inflammatory reaction within the stent led to reinterventions of a number of cases with suboptimal results.

Study protocol for a Prospective, Randomized controlled trial of stEnt graft and Drug-coated bAlloon Treatment for cephalic arch stenOsis in dysfunctional arteRio-venous fistulas (PREDATOR).

BACKGROUND: Treatment of cephalic arch stenosis (CAS) is associated with high risk of failure and complications. Although stent-graft (SG) placement has improved patency rates, stent edge restenosis has been raised as a potential limiting factor for SG usage in CAS. This study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of combining stent graft placement with paclitaxel-coated balloon (PCB) angioplasty versus PCB alone in the treatment of CAS. METHODS: This is an investigator-initiated, prospective, international, multicenter, open-label, randomized control clinical trial that plans to recruit 80 patients, who require fistuloplasty from dysfunctional arteriovenous fistula (AVF) from CAS. Eligible participants are randomly assigned to receive treatment with SG and PCB or PCB alone in a 1:1 ratio post-angioplasty (n = 40 in each arm). Randomization is stratified by de novo or recurrent lesion, and the participants are followed up for 1 year. The primary endpoints of the study are target lesion primary patency (TLPP) and access circuit primary patency (ACPP) rates at 6-months. The secondary endpoints are TLPP and ACPP at 3- and 12-month; target lesion and access circuit assisted primary and secondary patency rates at 3, 6, and 12-months and the total number of interventions; complication rate; and cost-effectiveness. DISCUSSION: This study will evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of combination SG and PCB implantation compared to PCB alone in the treatment of CAS for hemodialysis patients.

Clinical predictors of recurrent cephalic arch stenosis and impact of the access flow reduction on the patency rate.

OBJECTIVE: Despite the widespread use of conventional percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA), recurrence of cephalic arch stenosis (CAS), and low patency rate after PTA remain challenging problem. We aimed to identify the clinical predictors of recurrence of CAS and evaluate the effect of the access flow reduction on the fistula patency rate in patients with recurrent CAS. METHODS: In 1118 angiographies of 220 patients with CAS, access circuit patency rates after PTA and potential clinical predictors of recurrence of CAS were assessed. The effect of the banding procedure was evaluated in terms of post-interventional primary patency rate, and the number of interventions per access-year. RESULTS: At 3, 6, and 12 months after the first PTA on CAS, the post-interventional access circuit primary patency rates were 68.8%, 40.5%, and 25.1%, respectively. High CV to CA ratio (the ratio of the maximal diameter of the distal cephalic vein to the diameter of the cephalic arch) (Hazard ratio (HR), 1.437; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.036-1.992) and involvement of the proximal segment of cephalic arch (HR, 1.828; 95% CI, 1.194-2.801) were significant predictors of recurrent CAS. For those with recurrent CAS (>3 times/year) and an access flow rate >1.5 L/minute, endovascular banding procedure was performed. The banding procedure significantly reduced the number of interventions per access-year (t = 3.299, p = 0.005 and t = 2.989, p = 0.007, respectively). Post-interventional access circuit primary patency rate after banding was significantly higher than that before banding (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: High CV to CA ratio and involvement of the proximal segment of the cephalic arch are independent clinical predictors of recurrent CAS. Endovascular banding might delay recurrence of CAS in patients with high CV to CA ratio and high access flow.

Outcomes of endovascular treatment for stenosis occurring after cephalic vein transposition and graft interposition.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the outcome of endovascular treatment after surgical treatment for cephalic arch stenosis (CAS) in the brachiocephalic fistula (BCF) and to analyze the factors influencing patency. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of patients undergoing cephalic vein transposition (CVT) or graft interposition (GIP) for CAS from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2019. A total of 73 patients with restenosis were included in this study. Patients were classified into cephalic transposition (BCF-CVT) (n = 49) and graft interposition (BCF-GIP) (n = 24) groups. We calculated the postintervention primary and secondary patency of endovascular treatment by using the Kaplan-Meier analysis and analyzed variables associated with loss of postintervention patency. RESULTS: Six-month and 12-month postintervention primary patency rates of endovascular treatment for restenosis were 56.7% and 15.6% and secondary patency rates were 89.7% and 72.1%, respectively. In the BCF-CVT group, 6-month and 12-month postintervention primary patency was 56.8% and 17.6% and secondary patency was 93.3% and 79.4%, respectively. In the BCF-GIP group, 6-month and 12-month postintervention primary patency was 56.5% and 8.7% and secondary patency was 85.7% and 56.3%, respectively. There was no significant difference in postintervention primary patency between the two groups (P = .79). However, the BCF-CVT group demonstrated higher postintervention secondary patency (P = .034). The BCF-GIP group had a higher number of stenosis sites (P < .01). There was no significant predictor of reduced postintervention primary patency. The only adverse variable of postintervention secondary patency was BCF-GIP (hazard ratio, 3.14; 95% CI, 1.06-9.34; P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular treatment is still the acceptable option for stenosis occurring after surgical treatment for CAS. CVT provides higher postintervention secondary patency than GIP.

Treatment of cephalic arch stenosis in dysfunctional arteriovenous fistulas with paclitaxel-coated versus conventional balloon angioplasty.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of cephalic arch stenosis (CAS) with standard plain old balloon angioplasty (POBA) in dysfunctional arteriovenous fistulas (AVF), is associated with early re-stenosis and higher failure rates compared to other lesions. Paclitaxel-coated balloons (PCB) may improve patency rates. This is a retrospective cohort study. Patients who underwent POBA or PCB for CAS over a 3-year period were included. Outcomes compared were circuit primary patency rates (patency from index procedure to next intervention), circuit primary assisted-patency rates (patency from index procedure to thrombosis), and target lesion (CAS) patency rates (stenosis > 50%) at 3, 6 and 12 months. RESULTS: Ninety-one patients were included. Sixty-five (71.4%) had POBA, while 26 (28.6%) had PCB angioplasty. There were 62 (68.1%) de-novo lesions. CAS was the only lesion that needed treatment in 24 (26.4%) patients. Circuit primary patency rates for POBA versus PCB groups were 76.2% vs. 60% (p = 0.21), 43.5% vs. 36% (p = 0.69) and 22% vs. 9.1% (p = 0.22) at 3, 6 and 12-months respectively. Circuit assisted-primary patency rates were 93.7% vs. 92% (p = 1.00), 87.1% vs. 80% (p = 0.51) and 76.3% vs. 81.8% (p = 0.77), whilst CAS target lesion intervention-free patency rates were 79.4% vs. 68% (p = 0.40), 51.6% vs. 52% (p = 1.00) and 33.9% vs. 22.7% (p = 0.49) at 3, 6 and 12-months respectively. Estimated mean time to target lesion intervention was 215 ± 183.2 days for POBA and 225 ± 186.6 days for PCB (p = 0.20). CONCLUSION: Treatment of CAS with PCB did not improve target lesion or circuit patency rates compared to POBA.

[Cephalic arch stenosis. Case report and literary review].

Dysfunctional AVF represents one of the leading causes of morbidity in the hemodialysis population, with venous stenosis-related dysfunction being the most common underlying problem. Cephalic arch is a well-known site for the development of stenosis, especially in patients with brachiocephalic fistulas. The pathophysiology of cephalic arch stenosis (CAS) is still being investigated and various contributing factors have been suggested. The treatment options for CAS are many and include angioplasty, endovascular stent insertion, access flow reduction and surgical interventions, but none of the current modalities are ideal. Therefore, the treatment of CAS is difficult, as the stenosis in this area tends to recur leading to the need for repeat angioplasty, stents or surgical revision. A 57-year-old woman undergoing hemodialysis (HD) through a right brachiocephalic arteriovenous fistula was found to have high venous pressure during HD and prolonged bleeding after HD. Clinical examination revealed a hyperpulsatile fistula suggestive of outflow obstruction. Doppler ultrasound examination showed cephalic vein thrombosis, severe outflow stenosis and juxta-anastomotic area. A 10 x 40 mm stent (Cordis Smart stent) was positioned appropriately in the cephalic arch and deployed, the stenotic lesion in juxta-anastomotic area was dilated with angioplasty balloon with improvement in flow. After 14 months, the fistula is still working perfectly with adequate flow.

Double Mesh Nitinol Stent Versus Self-expanding Stent-graft in Recurrent/Resistant Cephalic Vein Arch Stenoses in Dialysis Fistulae: A Comparative Study.

PURPOSE: To compare the double mesh nitinol stent (DNS) versus the self-expanding stent-graft (SES) in recurrent/resistant cephalic vein arch stenosis in dialysis fistulae. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 17 cases with recurrent/resistant stenosis of the cephalic vein arch treated with a DNS were compared retrospectively with 18 cases treated with an SES. Stenting was performed either for significant recoil post-angioplasty with high-pressure balloons or in recurrent stenoses. Patients were followed up with Doppler ultrasound in our vascular access surveillance programme. Primary and assisted primary patency rates at 3, 6 and 12 months were estimated by Kaplan-Meier analysis. RESULTS: Both stents showed 100% technical success immediately post-stenting, defined as residual stenosis < 30%. 3, 6 and 12 month primary patency of the DNS was 82.4%, 69.7% and 28.1% versus 88.9%, 77.8% and 72.2% for the SES. The DNS had a mean primary patency of 242.4 days compared to 896.3 days for the SES (p = 0.021). 12 month assisted primary patency was 88.2% (DNS) and 100% (SES). The DNS had a mean assisted primary patency of 812 days compared to 1390.3 days for the SES, though this did not reach statistical significance. No stent fractures were identified at 2 years in either group. CONCLUSION: Both stents had 100% technical success with no stent fractures. SES showed statistically significant higher primary patency. Assisted primary patency was also higher, though this did not reach statistical significance.

Balloon assisted stent deployment in the cephalic arch (BASCA).

Cephalic arch stenosis causes repeated dysfunction and failure of arteriovenous access. Outcomes following balloon angioplasty alone in this location are unsatisfactory. Stent grafts have very good patency rates in this location. However, stent graft placement is technically challenging in this location due to the adverse angles and vectors of the cephalic arch. Stent graft deployment in this location is associated with a real risk of jailing the axillary vein, thereby precluding the use of that arm for future accesses and/or predisposes to venous edema. We describe a technique that was used to safely and effectively deploy a stent graft in the cephalic arch of a 65-year-old male patient.