Comparison of Ellipsys Percutaneous and Proximal Forearm Gracz-Type Surgical Arteriovenous Fistulas

Comparison of Outcomes of Drug-Coated Balloons versus Plain Balloons in Secondary Interventions on Percutaneous Arteriovenous Fistulae

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.

Novel classification of proximal forearm perforator vein in the planning and creation of percutaneous and surgical Gracz-type arteriovenous fistulae

BACKGROUND

The perforator vein determines whether it is feasible to create a percutaneous (pAVF) or surgical "Gracz-type" arteriovenous fistula (sAVF). Creating a standard anatomic classification of the antecubital region is beneficial to both the selection of the appropriate device and/or procedure and technical outcomes. Accordingly, an analysis of a large cohort of patients undergoing pAVF/sAVF was performed, focusing on perforator vein anatomical suitability, and a novel anatomical classification of the antecubital region was developed and proposed.

METHODS

Between August 2018 and July 2022, chronic or end-stage kidney disease patients as well as patients anticipated an initiation of apheresis, who were referred for vascular access planning, underwent a standardized evaluation of upper extremities. A vessel mapping summary detailing the vasculature and the access creation plan was completed, indicating the anatomical suitability for sAVF and pAVF (Ellipsys and WavelinQ) techniques.

RESULTS

Of 524 patients, 36.5% were female (average age 65 years). 53.2% were on dialysis, 41.6% had diabetes, and 13.2% had a previously failed permanent dialysis access. The anatomy for successful pAVF creation was judged to be suitable in 54% of patients for an Ellipsys-pAVF, and 29.8% for WavelinQ-pAVF. Of the WavelinQ group, 54.4% had suitable anatomy for ulnar, 26.9% for radial, and 18.6% for both ulnar/radial anastomoses. Additionally, 60.7% had suitable anatomy for pAVF creation with at least one of the systems, while 22.5% were suited for both types of pAVF-systems. 80.3% were candidates for creation of a Gracz-AVF.

CONCLUSION

Overall, we found that about 60% of patients are likely candidates for a pAVF, with 80% being candidates for creation of a Gracz-AVF. Male patients have significantly higher suitability for most types of AVF creation, and younger patients are more suitable for Ellipsys-pAVF and RCAVFs. Most importantly, a universal classification of perforator vein was developed, which is indispensable in modern vascular access planning.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of endovascular vs surgical arteriovenous fistula creation in the United States

OBJECTIVE

In the United States, an estimated $2.8 billion annually is spent on vascular access and its complications. Endovascular arteriovenous fistula (endoAVF) creation is a novel, minimally invasive alternative to traditional surgical AV fistula (sAVF) creation in ≤60% of patients. Although cost effective in single-payer systems, the clinical and financial impact of endoAVF in the United States remains uncertain.

METHODS

We constructed a decision tree followed by a probabilistic cohort state-transition model to study the cost effectiveness of endoAVF vs sAVF creation. We conducted a systematic review to obtain input parameters including technical success, maturation, patency, and utility values. We derived costs from the Medicare 2022 fee schedule and from the literature. We used a 5-year time horizon, an annual discount rate of 3% for costs and utilities (measured in quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]), and the common willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000. One-way and Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed varying technical success, patency, reintervention, cost, and utility parameters.

RESULTS

In the base-case scenario, endoAVF ($30,129 average per-person costs, 2.19 QALYs gained, 65% patent at 5 years) was not cost effective compared with sAVF ($12.987 average per-person costs, 2.11 QALYs gained, 66% patent at 5 years), generating an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $227,504 per QALY gained. In one-way sensitivity analyses, endoAVF becomes cost effective when the initial cost of sAVF creation exceeds endoAVF by ≥$600 (eg, if endoAVF creation costs ≤$3000 relative to the base-case sAVF cost of $3600), the additional QALYs gained from endoAVF exceeds 0.12 QALYs/year (eg, 0.81 QALYs gained/year from endoAVF compared with base-case sAVF 0.69 QALYs/year), the endoAVF maturation rate is >90% (base case 78%), or the sAVF maturation rate is <65% (base case 78%). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that sAVF remained the optimal strategy in 71% of iterations.

CONCLUSIONS

EndoAVF is not cost effective compared with sAVF when modeling 5-year outcomes. The main driver of sAVF remaining cost effective is the four times higher up-front cost for endoAVF creation, as well as a relatively low additional increase in quality of life for endoAVF. It will be important to establish how the endoAVF learning curve contributes to upfront costs and, given the annual cost attributed to vascular access nationally, a randomized controlled trial is warranted.

Multidisciplinary working group: key role for percutaneous endovascular AV fistula program. Point of view

Chronic kidney disease is a progressive condition that affects more than 10% of the general population worldwide. Hemodialysis is the most common therapeutic option for kidney failure, which develops in around one out of 1000 individuals in the general population. Hemodialysis needs a vascular access to connect to the extracorporeal machine. In the last few years percutaneous endovascular arterio-venous fistula technique has been increasingly employed with very promising results. Several advantages have been demonstrated in comparison to the standard surgical creation of an arteriovenous fistula. The percutaneous endovascular arterio-venous fistula technique requires multidisciplinary team work. In our practice, we have organized a multidisciplinary team that includes nephrologists, play a key role, interventional radiologists, vascular surgeons, anesthesiologists, and dialysis nurses. Procedural outcomes and feedback received from patients and family members are evaluated periodically in order to improve results. Nephrologists are involved in each step of the management of the percutaneous endovascular arterio-venous fistula: selection, mapping, creation, and follow up. Patient empowerment, education and involvement is required at each step. A dedicated training program, involving patients and the caregiver team is therefore needed. Additional research is required to confirm the benefit of the multidisciplinary team management in end-stage kidney disease patients.

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.

Early clinical experience and comparison between percutaneous and surgical arteriovenous fistula

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous arteriovenous fistula (pAVF) has been recently developed as an alternative to surgical AVF (sAVF). We report our experience with pAVF in comparison with a contemporaneous sAVF group.

METHODS

Charts of all 51 patients with pAVF performed at our institution were analyzed retrospectively, in addition to 51 randomly selected contemporaneous patients with sAVF (2018-2022) with available follow-up. Outcomes of interest were (i) procedural success rate, (ii) number of maturation procedures required, (iii) fistula maturation rates, and (iv) rates of tunneled dialysis catheter (TDC) removal. For patients on hemodialysis (HD), sAVF and pAVF were considered mature when the AVF was used for HD. For patients not on HD, pAVF were considered mature if flow rates of ≥500 mL/min were documented in superficial venous outflow; for sAVF, documentation of maturity based on clinical criteria was required.

RESULTS

Compared patients with sAVF, patients with pAVF were more likely to be male (78% vs 57%; P = .033) and less likely to have congestive heart failure (10% vs 43%; P < .001) and coronary artery disease (18% vs 43%; P = .009). Procedural success was achieved in 50 patients with pAVF (98%). Fistula angioplasties (60% vs 29%; P = .002) and ligation (24% vs 2%; P = .001) or embolization (22% vs 2%; P = .002) of competing outflow veins were more frequently performed on patients with pAVF. The surgical cohort had more planned transpositions (39% vs 6%; P < .001). When all maturation interventions were combined, pAVF required more maturation procedures, but this was not statistically significant (76% vs 53%; P = .692). When planned second-stage transpositions were excluded, pAVF had a statistically significant higher rate of maturation procedures (74% vs 24%; P < .001). Overall, 36 pAVF (72%) and 29 sAVF (57%) developed mature fistulas. This difference, however, was not statistically significant (P = .112). At the time of AVF creation, 26 patients with pAVF and 40 patients with sAVF were on HD, all through use of a TDC. Catheter removal was recorded in 15 patients with pAVF (58%) and 18 patients with sAVF (45%) (P = .314). The mean time until TDC removal in pAVF group was 146 ± 74 days, compared with 175 ± 99 in the sAVF group (P = .341).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with sAVF, rates of maturation after pAVF seem to be similar, but this result may be related to the higher intensity of maturation procedures and patient selection. An analysis of appropriately matched patients will assist in elucidating the possible role of pAVF vis-a-vis sAVF.

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.

[Acute interventions-dialysis shunt recanalization]

BACKGROUND

An arteriovenous fistula is vital for patients who need regular hemodialysis. Continuous patency and sufficient functionality determine quality of life and associated morbidity and mortality of patients.

PROBLEM

Following successful hemodialysis shunt creation, intimal hyperplasia and consecutive thrombosis or complete occlusion may cause different types of shunt dysfunctionality or even critical failure.

OBJECTIVE

Immediate shunt recanalization and revision by using an endovascular-first approach is crucial for long-term survival of hemodialysis fistula. There are several mechanisms available for catheter-based thrombus removal to unmask the typically underlying shunt stenosis.

METHODS

Primary technical recanalization success rates are very similar for clot cleaning. Treatment of intimal hyperplasia is preferably addressed by using drug-coated balloon angioplasty to allow for increased shunt patency compared to plain old balloon angioplasty. Stents and stent grafts are only used for resistant or repeated short-term recurrence of severe stenosis. Finally, surgical revision has a classical role in case of repeated failure of endovascular measures.

Endovascular Arteriovenous Fistula Creation-Review of Current Experience

Functioning vascular access is an essential element for life-saving hemodialysis therapy. A surgically-created arteriovenous fistula has been considered the best option for many years. Recently, two manufacturers developed systems for percutaneous/endovascular creation of an arteriovenous fistula (WavelinQ and Ellipsys). We provide a review of the available experience with these systems and discuss advantages and disadvantages.

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.

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.

Long Term Results from The Pivotal Multicenter Trial of Ultrasound Guided Percutaneous Arteriovenous Fistula Creation for Hemodialysis Access

PURPOSE

To report the five-year results from the Pivotal Multicenter Trial of Ultrasound Guided Percutaneous Arteriovenous Fistula (pAVF) Creation for Hemodialysis Access.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective review of 107 intent-to-treat (ITT) patients from the pivotal trial provided a long-term follow-up population (LTP) of 85 patients followed a median 50 months (range 12-60). Data evaluated in the LTP group were fistula maturation and use, secondary procedures, and complications. Kaplan-Meier analysis of primary, primary assisted, cumulative patency, and functional patency (time from two-needle to abandonment) were performed for the ITT population.

RESULTS

In the LTP 99% (84/85) of fistulas were mature with 99% (78/79) of patients requiring hemodialysis using their pAVF. Sustained fistula use (two-needle cannulation at prescribed rate, 2/3 sessions) was achieved in 92% (78/85) of patients, with seven patients never using their pAVF because not on dialysis (n=4), peritoneal dialysis (n=2), and refusing to use fistula (n=1). Fistula maintenance was required in 31.8% (27/85) of patients and included fistula dysfunction (21.2%), thrombosis (5.9%), cannulation injury (12.9%), and arm swelling (4.7%). The number of procedures performed per patient per year (PPPY) to maintain function and patency was 0.32 (91/288) for years 2-5. The cumulative patency was 89.5%, 88.4%, 88.4%, 85.6%, and 82.0% years 1-5, respectively. The functional patency was 91.8% at the end of the study. There were no major complications related to pAVF during long-term follow-up CONCLUSION: Percutaneous fistulae have provided clinically effective and durable access for hemodialysis with low complications. Continued use and evaluation of pAVF is warranted.

A Comparison Between the Efficacy and Safety of Endovascular Arteriovenous Fistula Creation and Surgical Fistula Creation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

An endovascular arteriovenous fistula is a recent technological advancement in hemodialysis vascular access. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of endovascular arteriovenous fistula (eAVF) creation compared with surgical arteriovenous fistula (sAVF) creation among patients with chronic kidney disease.

We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Clinical Trials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform until May 2021 to perform meta-analyses using random-effects models. Pre-specified primary outcomes were fistula maturation, procedure-related complications, and patient satisfaction. Secondary outcomes were procedural technical success, procedure time, all adverse events, and medical expenditure. The risk of bias in non-randomized studies of the interventions assessment tool, and the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach were used to assess the quality of individual studies and the body of evidence, respectively.

In seven studies including 860 patients, endovascular arteriovenous fistula creation had little to no effect on fistula maturation (odds ratio, 0.58; 95% confidence intervals, 0.05 to 6.91). Meta-analysis could not be performed for procedure-related complications and patient satisfaction due to insufficient data. For secondary outcomes, endovascular arteriovenous fistula resulted in a slight to no difference in procedural technical success (odds ratio, 0.69: 95% confidence intervals, 0.04 to 11.98) and all adverse events (odds ratio, 6.31; 95% confidence intervals, 0.64 to 62.22). Endovascular fistula creation incurred less medical expenditure than sAVF (mean difference, USD 12760; 95% confidence intervals, -19710 to -5820). Meta-analysis for procedure time was not performed because one of the studies had a critical risk of bias. All of these outcomes were of low certainty of evidence or very low certainty of evidence.

There was limited evidence for supporting endovascular arteriovenous fistula creation over conventional surgical arteriovenous fistula creation for patients with chronic kidney disease. Multicenter randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm the efficacy and safety of eAVFs in selected populations.

Endovascular Versus Surgical Arteriovenous Fistulas: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Rationale & Objective

To facilitate the process of dialysis for patients with kidney failure, an arteriovenous fistula (AVF) is created using either a surgical or percutaneous approach. We sought to compare the efficacy and procedural outcomes in creating an AVF percutaneously using Ellipsys (Avenu Medical) or WavelinQ (Becton Dickinson Medical) with surgery in all patients with kidney failure requiring a permanent AVF for dialysis.

Study Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Setting & Study Populations

All patients requiring a permanent AVF for dialysis.

Selection Criteria for Studies

We included studies that compared either the Ellipsys device or WavelinQ directly with surgery to create an AVF for long-term dialysis.

Data Extraction

Two reviewers independently reviewed the studies and extracted the data. Conflicts were resolved with a discussion and approval from the senior author.

Analytical Approach

Fixed-effects or random-effects models were used to pool the fixed sizes and 95% CIs based on the level of heterogeneity.

Results

There was no statistically significant difference observed between surgical AVF and endovascular AVF when comparing the primary outcomes of procedural success (OR = 1.44; 95% CI, 0.35, 5.88; P = 0.61; I2 = 0%), complications (OR = 0.28; 95% CI, 0.06, 1.46; P = 0.13; I2 = 69%), and the secondary outcomes of interest that included follow-up time (mean difference [MD] = -17.71; 95% CI, -189.53, 154.12; P = 0.84; I2 = 94%), failure rate (OR = 1.03; 95% CI, 0.21, 5.13; P = 0.97; I2 = 85%), and time to 2-needle cannulation (MD = -5.40; 95% CI, -38.88, 28.08; P = 0.75; I2 = 0%). However, a statistically significant difference was seen among the 2 groups for procedural time (MD = -54.25; 95% CI, -59.78, -48.71; P < 0.001; I2 = 98%), number of interventions needed to maintain patency (OR = 1.73; 95% CI, 1.22, 2.45; P < 0.01; I2 = 94%), and primary patency rate (OR = 0.34; 95% CI, 0.23,0.52; P < 0.001; I2 = 0%).

Limitations

The total number of studies included in this review was limited, with 3 of the 4 included studies being retrospective and only 1 being prospective. There was a lack of heterogeneity and randomization.

Conclusions

Percutaneous fistula creation using Ellipsys or WavelinQ is a unique and safe alternative with outcomes comparable to surgery. Future studies are needed, including observational studies in current clinical practice, to evaluate the efficacy and outcomes of endovascular AVF creation in clinical populations.

Percutaneous arteriovenous fistula creation

The first percutaneous systems used to create an arteriovenous fistula for hemodialysis were approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2018 and included the Ellipsys and WavelinQ devices. Early results and longer-term studies of these catheter-based devices suggest that they offer important benefits and potentially improved outcomes in patients with appropriate anatomy. The deep communicating vein in the cubital fossa and its relationship to the proximal radial artery or proximal ulnar artery are key vascular elements of both systems. The devices differ significantly in technical design, energy source, imaging requirements, procedure times, catheters, access vessel sites, and techniques. We review the two approved percutaneous arteriovenous fistula devices, including technical considerations, selecting the appropriate patient, postoperative evaluation, interventions, outcomes, potential complications, and cannulation issues.

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

PURPOSE

To retrospectively assess the safety and efficacy of percutaneous arteriovenous fistula (pAVF) creation with the WavelinQ 4-F EndoAVF System.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From February 2018 to June 2020, 30 pAVFs were created in 30 consecutive patients (men; age, 55.3 years ± 13.6). Of the 30 patients, 21 (70%) were already on hemodialysis using a central venous catheter. The primary outcome measures were technical success, complications, and cannulation rate. The secondary outcome measures included the number of secondary procedures needed for cannulation, maintenance time to cannulation, and pAVF survival.

RESULTS

Technical success was 100%. The adverse event rate was 6.7% (2/30), including a pseudoaneurysm of the brachial artery that developed immediately after sheath removal and an aneurysm of the anastomosis 17 days after the procedure, which was treated with a covered stent placed in the arterial side. The mean follow-up was 547 days ± 315.7 (range, 14-1,071 days). The cannulation rate was 86.7% (26/30). The mean time to cannulation was 61.3 days ± 32.5 (range, 15-135 days). The mean follow-up after cannulation was 566.2 days ± 252.7 (range, 35-1,041 days). Four pAVFs were thrombosed after cannulation, with 2 of them successfully declotted. Sixteen interventions were needed to achieve cannulation after the index procedure in 15 patients (overall, 0.53 procedures/patient). Seven maintenance endovascular interventions (following cannulation) were performed during the follow-up period in 6 patients (overall, 0.27 procedures/patient, 0.17 procedures/patient-years). For the pAVFs that were cannulated, patency was 96% at 1 year, and 82% at 2 and 3 years, according to the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

This initial experience suggests that pAVF creation is safe and can be successfully performed with high maturation and long-term patency rates. Larger-scale prospective studies are needed to validate the results.

Multicenter European real-world utilization of VasQ anastomotic external support device for arteriovenous fistulae

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the outcomes of arteriovenous fistulae (AVF), created with VasQ external support device under standard clinical practice across three vascular access clinics.

METHODS

This multinational, retrospective study evaluated prospectively collected clinical outcomes of both forearm and upper arm brachiocephalic AVF (BCAVF) created using the VasQ device. Fifty-one AVF patients were pooled from three different vascular access centers in Germany, Italy, and Spain. Postprocedure outcomes were assessed by flow measurement with ultrasound examination in all centers. Primary failure, usability, patency, and intervention rates during the study period were evaluated.

RESULTS

Fifty-one VasQ devices were implanted during 37 forearm (36 radiocephalic and 1 ulnar-basilic AVF) and 14 BCAVF procedures. The study population comprised mostly males (73%) and Caucasians (82%), with a mean age of 62.5 years (range, 38-84 years) and mean body mass index of 29.2. One patient died owing to access-unrelated reasons, and one patient was lost to follow-up without AVF assessment after its creation. From the remaining 49, 3 patients had a follow-up of less than 4 weeks and were excluded from maturation, primary failure, and dialysis initiation analysis (because those factors could not be evaluated yet), leaving 46 patients in this evaluation. Maturation was achieved in 91% of patients. The primary failure rate was 9%. A primary patency rate of 77% was observed at 6, 12, and 18 months. The secondary patency rate was 91% at 6 months, and 85% at 12 months and 18 months. Both primary patency and secondary patency did not differ statistically when comparing forearm AVF with BCAVF (P > .25). Successful cannulation was achieved in 86% of patients (32/37) requiring dialysis with a median time from creation to cannulation of 46 days. Of those patients, the functional patency rate was 94%. Five patients underwent seven interventions to maintain or restore patency or functionality, with an overall rate of 0.248 interventions per patient-year.

CONCLUSIONS

AVFs created with VasQ external support device demonstrated promising patency and functionality outcomes in multicentric real-world setting across the two most commonly used anatomic locations.