Percutaneous Arteriovenous Fistula Creation with the WavelinQ 4-French EndoAVF System: A Single-Center Retrospective Analysis of 30 Patients

Multi-Center Two-Year Patency Outcomes of Endovascular Arteriovenous Fistulas (endoAVF) Created with a 4 French System

PURPOSE

To assess multicenter two-year patency outcomes of endovascular arteriovenous fistulas (endoAVF) created with the WavelinQ device.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients who had fistulas created at three centers from January 2018 to December 2020 were included in this retrospective study. In total, 112 patients underwent endoAVF creation [40 females, 72 males; mean age 60 years (range 18-88)]. Data collected included patient demographics, location of fistula creation, interventions performed, and brachial artery flows pre- and post-creation. Two-year cumulative patency, functional patency, and primary patency were assessed with Kaplan-Meier methodology. Factors affecting patency and maturation were examined using the Cox proportional hazards model.

RESULTS

Technical success defined as angiographically successful endoAVF creation was 97.3% (109/112). In 11 patients the fistula did not mature for dialysis use. For 98 patients (87%) with endoAVF maturation, 12- and 24-month cumulative patency was 94.3% and 91.7%. Functional patency (two-needle cannulation) at 12 and 24 months was 95.7% and 92.7%, respectively. Median maturation time is 95 days (IQR 51-231 days). Male gender and brachial vein coiling at the time of endoAVF creation were predictive of maturation. There were 34 censored events (four patients undergoing renal transplantation; 30 patients deceased). Number of reinterventions per patient year was 0.73 where 43 were maturation procedures and 101 were maintenance procedures. One Grade 3 complication occurred of arterial access puncture site pseudoaneurysm.

CONCLUSION

A high two-year functional and cumulative patency following endoAVF creation with the WavelinQ device was observed in this multicenter real-world experience Level of Evidence: 3 Level of Evidence III.

Two-Year Cumulative and Functional Patency after Creation of Endovascular Arteriovenous Hemodialysis Fistulae

PURPOSE

To assess 2-year cumulative and functional patency of endovascular arteriovenous fistulae (endoAVF) created with the WavelinQ device.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients who had fistulae created at a single center from December 2019 to December 2020 were included in this retrospective study. Forty-three patients underwent endoAVF creation (22 females, 21 males). Data collected included patient demographics, location of fistula creation, interventions performed, and brachial artery flow before and after creation. Two-year cumulative and functional patency rates were assessed with Kaplan-Meier method, and variables that affected patency and maturation were examined using Cox proportional hazards model.

RESULTS

Technical success was 95% (41/43), and in 4 patients, the fistula did not mature for dialysis use (9.7%). For the remaining 37 patients with endoAVF maturation, 25 had ulnar-ulnar fistulae, 10 had radial-radial fistulae, and 2 had interosseous artery-vein fistulae. Mean maturity time was 73 days, and brachial artery flow of >886 mL/min was predictive of maturation. Mean tunneled dialysis catheter removal time was 133 days. Number of interventions per patient-year was 0.38, where 8 were maturation procedures (5 vein elevations/transpositions and 3 coil embolizations) and 21 were maintenance angioplasties. Two-year cumulative/secondary and functional patency rates were 89.4% and 92.1%, respectively, with a mean follow-up of 665.7 days. Examined variables did not impact cumulative or functional patency. One adverse event was migration of coil to the heart, which was successfully retrieved at time of procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Two-year patency of 89.4% and functional patency of 92.1% were observed after endoAVF creation with WavelinQ device.

Hemodialysis Access: US for Preprocedural Mapping and Evaluation of Maturity and Access Dysfunction

Patients with kidney failure require kidney replacement therapy. While renal transplantation remains the treatment of choice for kidney failure, renal replacement therapy with hemodialysis may be required owing to the limited availability and length of time patients may wait for allografts or for patients ineligible for transplant owing to advanced age or comorbidities. The ideal hemodialysis access should provide complication-free dialysis by creating a direct connection between an artery and vein with adequate blood flow that can be reliably and easily accessed percutaneously several times a week. Surgical arteriovenous fistulas and grafts are commonly created for hemodialysis access, with newer techniques that involve the use of minimally invasive endovascular approaches. The emphasis on proactive planning for the placement, protection, and preservation of the next vascular access before the current one fails has increased the use of US for preoperative mapping and monitoring of complications for potential interventions. Preoperative US of the extremity vasculature helps assess anatomic suitability before vascular access creation, increasing the rates of successful maturation. A US mapping protocol ensures reliable measurements and clear communication of anatomic variants that may alter surgical planning. Postoperative imaging helps assess fistula maturation before cannulation for dialysis and evaluates for early and late complications associated with arteriovenous access. Clinical and US findings can suggest developing stenosis that may progress to thrombosis and loss of access function, which can be treated with percutaneous vascular interventions to preserve access patency. Vascular access steal, aneurysms and pseudoaneurysms, and fluid collections are other complications amenable to US evaluation. ©RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. Test Your Knowledge questions for this article are available through the Online Learning Center.

Percutaneous Creation of Hemodialysis Fistulas

Non-surgical, percutaneous, or endovascular hemodialysis arteriovenous creation represent an evolution of access creation away from traditional surgical fistulas. These fistulas are additional to surgical alternatives and published studies with the two commercially available devices suggest positive outcomes in terms of technical success, maturation, functionality, and patency. Relevant published studies are presented, and other considerations related to these new devices/procedures are also summarized.

A systematic review aggregated data and individual participant data meta-analysis of percutaneous endovascular arteriovenous fistula

OBJECTIVE

To assess the short-term and mid-term safety and efficacy of percutaneous endovascular arteriovenous fistula (pAVF) creation.

METHODS

A systematic search was implemented corresponding to the PRISMA 2020 and the PRISMA for individual participant data (IPD) systematic reviews 2015. Aggregated data from the included studies were obtained and meta-analyzed regarding both the overall pAVF efficacy and the comparison of pAVF with surgical AVF (sAVF). We performed a two-stage IPD meta-analysis for studies comparing pAVF and sAVF regarding primary and secondary patency. Primary end points included primary patency, secondary patency, and functional cannulation.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies with 1863 patients were included. The overall pAVF, primary patency, secondary patency, functional cannulation and abandonment rates were 54.01% (95% confidence interval [CI], 40.69-66.79), 87.27% (95% CI, 81.53-91.42), 79.94% (95% CI, 65.94-89.13), and 15.58% (95% CI, 7.77-28.79), respectively. The overall pAVF, technical success, maturation, reintervention per person-years and mean time to maturation rates were 97.08% (95% CI, 95.66-98.04), 82.13% (95% CI, 71.64-89.32), 0.80 (95% CI, 0.34-1.47), and 58 days (95% CI, 36.64-92.82), respectively. Secondary patency and pAVF abandonment rates where the only end points were WavelinQ and Ellipsys displayed statistically significant differences of 81.36% (95% CI, 76.15-85.65) versus 92.12% (95% CI, 87.94-94.93) and 32.54% (95% CI, 22.23-44.87) versus 11.13% (95% CI, 4.82-23.65). An IPD meta-analysis of hazard ratios for primary and secondary patency between pAVF and sAVF were 1.27 (95% CI, 0.61-2.67) and 1.25 (95% CI, 0.87-1.80), favoring sAVF. Statistically significant difference between pAVF and sAVF were solely depicted for steal syndrome relative risk of 5.91 (95% CI, 1.12-31.12) and wound infections relative risk of 4.19 (95% CI, 1.04-16.88). Plotting of pAVF smoothed hazard estimate displayed an upsurge in the probability of primary patency failure at 1 month after the intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Although we failed to identify statistically significant differences between pAVF and sAVF regarding any of the primary end points, pAVF displayed a decreased risk for steal syndrome and wound infection. Although both the Ellipsys and WavelinQ devices displayed satisfactory secondary patency rates, Ellipsys demonstrated a statistically significant improved rate compared with WavelinQ. Additionally, and despite the borderline statistically insignificant inferior reintervention rate displayed by WavelinQ, one in three WavelinQ pAVFs resulted in abandonment. The introduction of pAVF as a treatment modality calls for standardized definition adjustment and improvement.

The evolving panorama of vascular access in the 21st century

There are three major types of hemodialysis vascular access: hemodialysis catheters, arteriovenous grafts, and arteriovenous fistulas. Arteriovenous fistulas provide the best access due to their reliability and long-term patency. They are recommended by the current Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiatives (K-DOQI) guidelines; however, not all patients benefit from arteriovenous fistulas due to poor maturation or a lack of adequate vasculature. Currently, hemodialysis is initiated via catheters in the majority of patients. Catheters are associated with high morbidity and mortality due to infection, lower quality of dialysis, and the development of central vein stenosis. The varied responses of patients to the different access types exemplify the need to choose the "right access for the right patient" based on scores that can predict death risk and progression of chronic kidney disease. Additionally, vascular access, often referred to as the "Achilles' heel" of hemodialysis patients, represents a significant percentage of the Medicare budget that continues to increase yearly. The purpose of this paper is to review the current literature on the management of vascular access complications and infection treatment and prevention. The paper also explores emerging research regarding the devices and methods to improve access outcomes such as early cannulation arteriovenous grafts, endovascular arteriovenous fistula creation, and regenerative grafts with resorbable scaffolds, among others. The data were collected through literature searches via PubMed, Athens and web search engines.

Sistema percutáneo de creación de fistulas arteriovenosas en pacientes con hemodiálisis: nuestra experiencia inicial

Introducción: La fístula arteriovenosa es considerada el acceso de elección para los pacientes en hemodiálisis; en los últimos años emerge una alternativa a la creación quirúrgica de esta: la fístula arteriovenosa endovascular. Esta nueva tecnología conlleva un método menos agresivo y sin cirugía.Objetivo: Describir los datos preliminares de nuestra unidad tras la implantación de este sistema novedoso, así como su implicación para enfermería.Material y Método: Análisis descriptivo retrospectivo de las FAV-endovasculares realizadas a cinco pacientes mediante técnica percutánea. Se consideraron las características de los pacientes, de las FAV-endovasculares realizadas y la dificultad para su punción (escala EVA).Resultados: La edad media fue de 63 (47-77) años, 100% hombres, dializándose con catéter tunelizado, a 4 de los pacientes se les había realizado al menos una fístula arteriovenosa quirúrgica sin éxito. La creación de la FAV-endovascular fue exitosa en 4 de los 5 pacientes, todas con localización radio-radial. No hubo complicaciones durante el procedimiento. De las 4 FAV-endovasculares 3 precisaron intervención endovascular posterior para su maduración. La media de tiempo de maduración 4,5 (4-5) meses; las 4 continuaron permeables al año.Puntuada por 9 enfermeras experimentadas, la mediana de dificultad fue: punción inicial: 7, a partir del mes: 5 y comparada con las FAV quirúrgicas: 5.Conclusiones: La FAV-endovascular supuso un procedimiento mínimamente invasivo con menor impacto para los pacientes, elevado éxito inicial, pero precisó intervención endovascular posterior para su maduración. La dificultad para la punción fue más elevada inicialmente. La ausencia de cicatriz  supuso realizar una exploración más exhaustiva.

Percutaneous endovascular arteriovenous fistula: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

Currently, percutaneous endovascular creation of arteriovenous fistula (AVF) shows excellent outcomes. However, few systematic research evidence to support clinical decision making on the benefit of endovascular AVF is available. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of endovascular AVF (endoAVF) in patients with renal failure.

Methods

We searched the Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases for studies on endovascular or endovascular versus surgery for the creation of AVF. Two reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed by Review Manager 5.4 software (Revman, The Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, United Kingdom) and Stata 15.0 (Stata Corp, College Station, TX, United States).

Results

A total of 14 case series and 5 cohort studies, with 1,929 patients, were included in this study. The technique success was 98.00% for endoAVF (95% CI, 0.97–0.99; I² = 16.25%). There was no statistically significant difference in 3 cohort studies between endovascular and surgical AVF for procedural success (OR = 0.69; 95% CI, 0.04–11.98; P = 0.80; I² = 53%). The maturation rates of endoAVF were 87.00% (95% CI, 0.79–0.93; I² = 83.96%), and no significant difference was observed in 3 cohort studies between the 2 groups (OR = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.20–2.63; P = 0.63; I² = 88%). Procedure-related complications for endoAVF was 7% (95% CI, 0.04–0.17; I² = 78.31%), and it did not show significant difference in 4 cohort studies between the 2 groups (OR = 1.85; 95% CI, 0.37–9.16; P = 0.45; I² = 59%).

Conclusion

The endovascular creation of AVF is potentially effective and safe. These important data may provide evidence to support clinicians and patients in making decisions with endovascular AVF. But further research is great necessary due to lack of randomized controlled studies.

Outcomes of Wrist-Access Deep Venous Embolization Following Percutaneous Fistula Creation: A Two-Year Single Center Experience

PURPOSE

During percutaneous arteriovenous (pAVF) fistula creation, deep venous embolization is recommended to encourage superficial venous flow development. The safety of crossing adjacent to the newly formed fistula from wrist venous access has not been established. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of antegrade deep venous embolization after creation of the pAVF.

MATERIALS

A retrospective analysis was performed of all procedural data related to pAVF creation using the Wavelinq device from October 2019 to November 2021. Patient data from the hospital information systems were collected where the venous access for fistula creation was from the wrist-access (ulnar or radial vein) and where deep venous embolization was performed after forming the fistula and crossing adjacent to the anastomosis. Thirty-nine patients were identified.

RESULTS

Twenty pAVFs were created from wrist ulnar vein access and 19 from radial vein access. The accessed veins were used for embolization of the brachial veins central to the newly created anastomosis. No pAVFs were lost by crossing adjacent to the anastomotic area to perform deep venous embolization at time of creation. There were no major complications, specifically bleeding, infection, pseudoaneurysm formation. Rates of minor complications consisted of two coil migrations to the right atrium requiring uneventful retrieval (5%). Follow-up ultrasound data showed no evidence of delayed complications.

CONCLUSION

In this single center experience crossing alongside the anastomosis of a newly formed percutaneous fistula from an antegrade venous approach was safe with no risk of loss of the pAVF.

Percutaneous Hemodialysis Fistula Creation

Two devices have been recently introduced to European Union and North American clinical practice that allow for percutaneous creation of autogenous hemodialysis fistulas (pAVF). Although there are similarities between the devices, there are many differences. Adoption of either or both technologies by an interventionalist may be determined by the individual's comfort with the device. Importantly, current and future outcomes will shape acceptance and use of these devices. This review focuses on the similarities and differences of each device, the procedures, published outcomes to date and their interpretation and other clinical considerations towards initiation of a successful pAVF program.