Comparison of drug-coated balloon angioplasty versus conventional angioplasty for arteriovenous fistula stenosis: Systematic review and meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 357-365 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sohail Abdul Salim ◽  
Hong Tran ◽  
Charat Thongprayoon ◽  
Tibor Fülöp ◽  
Wisit Cheungpasitporn
Keyword(s):  
Cohort Studies ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Arteriovenous Fistula ◽  
Balloon Angioplasty ◽  
Odds Ratio ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Target Lesion ◽  
Primary Patency ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Background: Arteriovenous fistula is the most preferred form of vascular access, but stenosis treated by balloon angioplasty is prone to restenosis. Multiple trials have been published with regard to the use of paclitaxel-coated balloon to prolong lesion patency compared to conventional balloon. Although paclitaxel-coated balloon has theoretical appeal, its use has not been widespread nationwide due to cost and lack of large-scale multicenter studies. We performed this meta-analysis to evaluate whether paclitaxel-coated balloon outperforms conventional balloon to prolong target lesion patency. Methods: PubMed/Medline, Clinical Trials.gov, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central were searched from inception through April 2019 for studies that investigated the use of paclitaxel-coated balloon in arteriovenous fistula. Results: Ten studies were included in the final meta-analysis: six studies were randomized controlled trials and four studies were cohort studies. There were 911 participants with a mean age of 64.78 (±5.96) years, and 61.89% were male. Outcome of interest was target lesion primary patency, recorded at 1, 3, 6, 7, 12, and 24 months. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials shows that paclitaxel-coated balloons did not statistically improve target lesion primary patency compared to conventional balloons at months 1 (odds ratio = 1.54, p = 0.6373), 3 (odds ratio = 0.57, p = 0.0575), 6 (odds ratio = 0.65, p = 0.3644), 7 (odds ratio = 0.63, p = 0.0582), 12 (odds ratio = 0.64, p = 0.0612), and 24 (odds ratio = 0.43, p = 0.3452). Effect of paclitaxel-coated balloons was statistically significant for cohort studies at months 6 (odds ratio = 0.26, p = 0.0007), 12 (odds ratio = 0.21, p = 0.0001), and 24 (odds ratio = 0.23, p = 0.01). Conclusion: Paclitaxel-coated balloon showed no statistically significant improvement over conventional balloons in decreasing fistula stenosis in randomized controlled trial but were significant for cohort studies.

scholarly journals Drug‐Coated Balloon Versus Plain Balloon Angioplasty for Hemodialysis Dysfunction: A Meta‐Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chenyu Liu ◽  
Matthew Wolfers ◽  
Bint‐e Zainab Awan ◽  
Issa Ali ◽  
Adrian Michael Lorenzana ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Balloon Angioplasty ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Target Lesion ◽  
Primary Patency ◽  
Target Lesion Revascularization ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Drug Coated Balloon

Background Both drug‐coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty and conventional plain balloon angioplasty (PBA) can be implemented to treat hemodialysis dysfunction. The present study aims to compare the safety and efficacy of these 2 approaches by conducting a meta‐analysis of available randomized controlled trials. Methods and Results PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases were queried from establishment to January 2021. A total of 18 randomized controlled trials including 877 and 875 patients in the DCB and PBA groups, respectively, were included in the present meta‐analysis. Target lesion primary patency, circuit patency, target lesion revascularization, and mortality were pooled. Odds ratios (ORs) were reported with 95% CIs. Publication bias was analyzed with funnel plot and Egger test. Target lesion primary patency was higher among patients who underwent DCB (OR, 2.93 [95% CI, 2.13–4.03], P <0.001 at 6 months; OR, 2.47 [95% CI, 1.53–3.99], P <0.001 at 1 year). Also, the DCB group had a higher dialysis circuit patency at 6 months (OR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.56–3.77 [ P <0.001]) and 1 year (OR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.22–3.00 [ P =0.005]). Compared with the PBA group, the DCB group had lower odds of target lesion revascularization during follow‐up (OR, 0.43 [95% CI, 0.23–0.82], P =0.001 at 6 months; OR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.32–1.73], P =0.490 at 1 year). The OR of mortality was comparable between 2 groups at 6 months (OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.42–3.33 [ P =0.760]) and 1 year (OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.58–1.48 [ P =0.750]). Conclusions Based on evidence from 18 randomized controlled trials, DCB angioplasty is superior to PBA in maintaining target lesion primary patency and circuit patency among patients with dialysis circuit stenosis. DCB angioplasty also reduces target lesion revascularization with a similar risk of mortality compared with PBA.

scholarly journals Angioplasty for dysfunctional arteriovenous fistulas: a meta-analysis of recent randomized controlled trials compared paclitaxel-coated balloon versus conventional balloon angioplasty

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qin Yang ◽  
Yi Zhou ◽  
Kui Cai ◽  
Yufang Chen ◽  
Congying Xia
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Balloon Angioplasty ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Neointimal Hyperplasia ◽  
Target Lesion ◽  
Primary Patency ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Arteriovenous Fistulas ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Conventional Balloon Angioplasty

Abstract Background Stenosis in arteriovenous fistulas (AVF) due to neointimal hyperplasia is one of the most common causes of hemodialysis vascular access dysfunction. Treating patients with dysfunctional AVF with drug-coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty may potentially improve outcomes. This systematic review aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of DCB angioplasty versus conventional balloon angioplasty by pooling evidence from the most recent randomized controlled trials. Methods We conducted a comprehensive literature search in the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane central databases. Two independent researchers screened the article, extracted interest and evaluated included studies for risk of bias. Pooled estimation was conducted in terms of 6-month target-lesion primary patency (TLPP) and target-lesion reintervention (TLR), as well as other outcomes. Results were expressed with odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Results A total of 4 RCTs were identified and included in the meta-analyses, with 911 participants. There was no significant increase in rates of 6-month TLPP (OR 1.63, 95%CI 0.39–6.79, p = 0.35), or decrease in 6-month TLR (OR 0.45, 95%CI 0.17–1.19 p = 0.07) in patients who received DCB as compared to those who received conventional balloon angioplasty. Similarly, we found no difference in the 6-month access circuit primary patency and reinvention between the two groups. Conclusion There was no evidence supporting that DCB has a statistically significant higher rate of TLPP and lower rates of TLR in the treatment of dysfunctional AVF than conventional balloon angioplasty. However, DCB was non-inferior to conventional balloon angioplasty in terms of safety. Therefore, further study is needed to clarify whether DCB angioplasty can benefit hemodialysis patients with dysfunction AVF.

Long-term mortality and patency after drug-coated balloon angioplasty in the hemodialysis circuit: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2022 ◽  
pp. 112972982110701
Author(s):  
Yunfeng Li ◽  
Zhenwei Shi ◽  
Yunyun Zhao ◽  
Zhanjiang Cao ◽  
Zhengli Tan
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Balloon Angioplasty ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Primary Patency ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Technical Success ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Drug Coated Balloon

Purpose: To compare all-cause mortality and primary patency with drug-coated balloon angioplasty (DCBA) compared with plain balloon angioplasty (PBA) in people with hemodialysis-related stenosis. Materials and methods: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from November 1966 to February 2021 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the use of DCBA versus PBA for stenosis in hemodialysis circuits. Data extracted from the articles were integrated to determine all-cause mortality, target lesion primary patency (TLPP), circuit access primary patency (CAPP), 30-day adverse events, and technical success for the two approaches. We performed meta-analysis on these results using a fixed-effects model to evaluate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) where I2 < 50% in a test for heterogeneity, or a random-effect model if otherwise. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were also performed. Results: Sixteen RCTs of 1672 individuals were included in our meta-analysis, of which 839 individuals received DCBA and 833 received PBA. The pooled outcome showed no statistical difference between DCBA and PBA in all-cause mortality at 6 months (OR = 1.29, 95% CI = 0.72–2.32, p = 0.39, I2 = 4%), 12 months (OR = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.68–1.53, p = 0.91, I2 = 0%), and 24 months (OR = 1.50, 95% CI = 0.87–2.57, p = 0.15, I2 = 0%), 30-day adverse events (OR = 1.09, 95% CI = 0.30–3.98, p = 0.90, I2 = 66%), and technical success (OR = 0.18, 95% CI = 0.02–1.92, p = 0.16, I2 = 65%). The DCBA had significantly better outcomes versus PBA in TLPP at 6 months (OR = 2.37, 95% CI = 1.84–3.04, p < 0.001, I2 = 44%) and 12 months (OR = 1.77, 95% CI = 1.22–2.56, p = 0.002, I2 = 56%), and CAPP at 6 months (OR = 2.07, 95% CI = 1.21–3.54, p = 0.008, I2 = 67%) and 12 months (OR = 1.66, 95% CI = 1.29–2.15, p < 0.001, I2 = 0%). Conclusion: In hemodialysis circuit stenosis, DCBA appears to have similar safety but greater efficacy than PBA.

scholarly journals Vitamin D supplementation, COVID-19 and disease severity: a meta-analysis

QJM ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
K Shah ◽  
D Saxena ◽  
D Mavalankar
Keyword(s):  
Vitamin D ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Odds Ratio ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Vitamin D Supplementation ◽  
Hospitalized Patients ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Abstract Objective: Current meta-analysis aims to understand the effect of oral supplementation of vitamin D on intensive care unit (ICU) requirement and mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Methods: Databases PubMed, preprint servers, and google scholar were searched from December 2019 to December 2020. Authors searched for the articles assessing role of vitamin D supplementation on COVID-19. Cochrane RevMan tool was used for quantitative assessment of the data, where heterogeneity was assessed using I2 and Q statistics and data was expressed using odds ratio with 95% confidence interval. Results: Final meta-analysis involved pooled data of 532 hospitalized patients (189 on vitamin D supplementation and 343 on usual care/placebo) of COVID-19 from three studies (Two randomized controlled trials, one retrospective case-control study). Statistically (p&lt;0.0001) lower ICU requirement was observed in patients with vitamin D supplementation as compared to patients without supplementations (odds ratio: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.210-0.626). However, it suffered from significant heterogeneity, which reduced after sensitivity analysis. In case of mortality, vitamin D supplements has comparable findings with placebo treatment/usual care (odds ratio: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.413-2.113; p=0.87). The studies did not show any publication bias and had fair quality score. Subgroup analysis could not be performed due to limited number of studies and hence dose and duration dependent effect of vitamin D could not be evaluated. Conclusions: Although the current meta-analysis findings indicate potential role of vitamin D in improving COVID-19 severity in hospitalized patients, more robust data from randomized controlled trials are needed to substantiate its effects on mortality.

scholarly journals Thoracoscopic surgical ablation or catheter ablation for patients with atrial fibrillation? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 31 (6) ◽  
pp. 763-773
Author(s):  
Shaolei Yi ◽  
Xiaojun Liu ◽  
Wei Wang ◽  
Lianghua Chen ◽  
Haitao Yuan
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Catheter Ablation ◽  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Odds Ratio ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Invasive Procedure ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Surgical Ablation ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Abstract OBJECTIVES There is an urgent need to understand the difference in the influence of thoracoscopic surgical ablation (TSA) and catheter ablation (CA) on clinical outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of TSA versus CA in patients with AF. METHODS Databases including EMBASE, Clinical Trials, PubMed and Cochrane Central Registered Control System were screened for the retrieval of articles. A direct meta-analysis of TSA versus CA was conducted. The I2 test analysis was performed to evaluate heterogeneity. The Begg–Mazumdar test and the Harbord–Egger test were used to detect publication bias. The primary efficacy outcome was freedom from atrial tachyarrhythmia, while the primary safety outcome was severe adverse event (SAE) occurrence. RESULTS Of the 860 identified articles, 6, comprising 466 participants, were finally included. The rate of freedom from AT was higher in the TSA group (75%) than in the CA group (57.1%) (odds ratio 0.41; 95% confidence interval 0.2–0.85; P = 0.02; I2 = 57%). A larger number of SAEs were observed in the TSA group than in the CA group (odds ratio 0.16; 95% confidence interval 0.006–0.46; P = 0.0006; I2 = 44%). The result of the subgroup analysis of 3 studies that enrolled AF patients without a history of ablation showed that the incidence of AT was comparable in both arms. The ablation procedure and hospitalization durations were longer in the TSA arm. CONCLUSIONS In our study, TSA was associated with better efficacy but a higher rate of SAEs compared to CA. In addition, TSA did not show better efficacy results as the first invasive procedure in the sub-analysis of patients with paroxysmal AF or early persistent AF. Therefore, doctors should recommend either TSA or CA to patients with AF after due consideration of the aforementioned findings.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document