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.

What are the observed procedural costs of vascular access surgery? Protocol for a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: A central component in the introduction of a novel surgical procedure or technique is an evaluation of its cost efficiency when compared with a benchmark standard of care. Accurate assessment of costs is thus essential in ensuring appropriate allocation of resources within a healthcare system. The treatment of kidney failure requires a significant volume of resources, and vascular access provision is the main modifiable cost. The costs of providing this service are obscured by generic NHS reference costs, which lack adequate granularity to allow meaningful comparisons between treatments. The aim of this systematic review will be to assess the reporting of procedural costs in all published economic analyses of vascular access surgery and perform a comparison of the reported procedural costs involved in arteriovenous fistula (AVF) and arteriovenous graft (AVG) creation. This will provide an estimate as to the accuracy of the NHS reference costs in this field. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines will be followed. A systematic search will be performed of the MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane databases to identify full-text economic analyses of vascular access for haemodialysis in which the procedural cost of AVF or AVG creation is reported. Publications in English from 1 January 2000 to 30 August 2023, will be eligible for inclusion. Studies will be selected by title and abstract review, followed by a full-text review using inclusion and exclusion criteria. Studies not reporting the procedural costs of surgery will be excluded. Data collected will pertain to procedural costs of AVF and AVG creation. Costs will be adjusted to a common currency using a gross domestic product (GDP) deflator index and conversion rates based on purchasing power parities for GDP. Comparison with NHS reference costs will indicate their reliability for use in future economic analyses in this field. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for this systematic review. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023458779.

Quality assurance in surgical trials of arteriovenous grafts for haemodialysis: A systematic review, a narrative exploration and expert recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Introducing new procedures and challenging established paradigms requires well-designed randomised controlled trials (RCT). However, RCT in surgery present unique challenges with much of treatment tailored to the individual patient circumstances, refined by experience and limited by organisational factors. There has been considerable debate over the outcomes of arteriovenous grafts (AVG) compared to AVF, but any differences may reflect differing practice and potential variability. It is essential, therefore, when considering an RCT of a novel surgical procedure or device that quality assurance (QA) is defined for both the new approach and the comparator. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the QA standards performed in RCT of AVG using a multi-national, multi-disciplinary approach and propose an approach for future RCT. METHOD: The methods of this have been previously registered (PROSPERO: CRD420234284280) and published. In summary, a four-stage review was performed: identification of RCT of AVG, initial review, multidisciplinary appraisal of QA methods and reconciliation. QA measures were sought in four areas - generic, credentialing, standardisation and monitoring, with data abstracted by a multi-national, multi-speciality review body. RESULTS: QA in RCT involving AVG in all four domains is highly variable, often sub-optimally described and has not improved over the past three decades. Few RCT established or defined a pre-RCT level of experience, none documented a pre-trial education programme, or had minimal standards of peri-operative management, no study had a defined pre-trial monitoring programme, and none assessed technical performance. CONCLUSION: QA in RCT is a relatively new area that is expanding to ensure evidence is reliable and reproducible. This review demonstrates that QA has not previously been detailed, but can be measured in surgical RCT of vascular access, and that a four-domain approach can easily be implemented into future RCT.