The myth of restenosis after carotid angioplasty and stenting

Comparison of carotid endarterectomy and repeated carotid angioplasty and stenting for in-stent restenosis (CERCAS trial): a randomised study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

In-stent restenosis (ISR) belongs to an infrequent but potentially serious complication after carotid angioplasty and stenting in patients with severe carotid stenosis. Some of these patients might be contraindicated to repeat percutaneous transluminal angioplasty with or without stenting (rePTA/S). The purpose of the study is to compare the safety and effectiveness of carotid endarterectomy with stent removal (CEASR) and rePTA/S in patients with carotid ISR.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with carotid ISR (≥80%) were randomly allocated to the CEASR or rePTA/S group. The incidence of restenosis after intervention, stroke, transient ischaemic attack myocardial infarction and death 30 days and 1 year after intervention and restenosis 1 year after intervention between patients in CEASR and rePTA/S groups were statistically evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 31 patients were included in the study; 14 patients (9 males; mean age 66.3±6.6 years) were allocated to CEASR and 17 patients (10 males; mean age 68.8±5.6 years) to the rePTA/S group. The implanted stent in carotid restenosis was successfully removed in all patients in the CEASR group. No clinical vascular event was recorded periproceduraly, 30 days and 1 year after intervention in both groups. Only one patient in the CEASR group had asymptomatic occlusion of the intervened carotid artery within 30 days and one patient died in the rePTA/S group within 1 year after intervention. Restenosis after intervention was significantly greater in the rePTA/S group (mean 20.9%) than in the CEASR group (mean 0%, p=0.04), but all stenoses were <50%. Incidence of 1-year restenosis that was ≥70% did not differ between the rePTA/S and CEASR groups (4 vs 1 patient; p=0.233).

CONCLUSION

CEASR seems to be effective and save procedures for patients with carotid ISR and might be considered as a treatment option.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05390983.

Length and location of post-PIRCS predict percutaneous transluminal angioplasty and stenting-related restenosis in nasopharyngeal cancer

PURPOSE

Post-irradiated carotid stenosis (PIRCS) commonly occurs in patients with nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC) after receiving radiotherapy. A high in-stent restenosis (ISR) is observed in these patients after percutaneous transluminal angioplasty and stenting (PTAS) for PIRCS. Risk factors for ISR in these patients remain unclear.

METHODS

Data were retrospectively analyzed from 68 NPC patients with 70 lesions treated with PTAS for PIRCS. The median follow-up was 40 months (range: 4-120). Evaluations of demographic and clinical characteristics included stenotic severity, stenotic lesion length (SLL), stenotic lesion location, and ISR-related stroke during follow-up. The risk for ISR was evaluated using multiple Cox regression analysis.

RESULTS

The median age of the patients was 61 (35-80) years and 94.1% were male. The median stenosis was 80% (60-99%) and the median SLL was 2.6 cm (0.6-12.0 cm) before PTAS. Compared to those without ISR, patients with longer SLL were at significantly greater risk of developing significant ISR, defined as > 50% after PTAS (hazard ratio [HR] and 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.06 [1.30-3.28]). PTAS for lesions from the internal carotid artery (ICA) to common carotid artery (CCA) was associated with a significantly greater risk of ISR than lesions located only in the ICA (HR: 9.58 [1.79-51.34]). The baseline cut-off value for SLL that best predicted significant ISR was 1.6 cm (area under the curve 0.700, sensitivity 83.3% and specificity 62.5%).

CONCLUSION

Stenotic lesions located from the ICA to CCA with longer SLL at baseline appear to predict ISR in NPC patients with PIRCS after PTAS. Intensive post-procedural follow-up is advised for this patient population.

Treatment of the Carotid In-stent Restenosis: A Systematic Review

Background and Purpose: In-stent restenosis (ISR) after carotid artery stent (CAS) is not uncommon. We aimed to evaluate therapeutic options for ISR after CAS. Methods: We searched PubMed and EMBASE until November 2, 2020 for studies including the treatment for ISR after CAS. Results: In total, 35 studies, covering 1,374 procedures in 1,359 patients, were included in this review. Most cases (66.3%) were treated with repeat CAS (rCAS), followed by percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) (17.5%), carotid endarterectomy (CEA) (14.3%), carotid artery bypass (1.5%), and external beam radiotherapy (0.4%). The rates of stroke & TIA within the postoperative period were similar in three groups (PTA 1.1%, rCAS 1.1%, CEA 1.5%). CEA (2.5%) was associated with a slightly higher rate of postoperative death than rCAS (0.7%, P = 0.046). Furthermore, the rate of long-term stroke & TIA in PTA was 5.7%, significantly higher than rCAS (1.8%, P = 0.036). PTA (27.8%) was also associated with a significantly higher recurrent restenosis rate than rCAS (8.2%, P = 0.002) and CEA (1.6%, P < 0.001). The long-term stroke & TIA and recurrent restenosis rates showed no significant difference between rCAS and CEA. Conclusions: rCAS is the most common treatment for ISR, with low postoperative risk and low long-term risk. CEA is an important alternative for rCAS. PTA may be less recommended due to the relatively high long-term risks of stroke & TIA and recurrent restenosis.

Poststent ballooning during transcarotid artery revascularization

BACKGROUND

Poststent ballooning/angioplasty (post-SB) have been shown to increase the risk of stroke risk after transfemoral carotid artery stenting. With the advancement of transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) with dynamic cerebral blood flow reversal, we aimed to study the impact of post-SB during TCAR.

METHODS

Patients undergoing TCAR in the Vascular Quality Initiative between September 2016 and May 2019 were included and were divided into three groups: those who received prestent deployment angioplasty only (pre-SB, reference group), those who received poststent deployment ballooning only (post-SB), and those who received both prestent and poststent deployment ballooning (prepost-SB). Patients who did not receive any angioplasty during their procedure (n = 367 [6.7%]) were excluded because these represent a different group of patients with less complex lesions than those requiring angioplasty. Primary outcome was in-hospital stroke or death. Analysis was performed using univariable and multivariable logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Of 5161 patients undergoing TCAR, 34.7% had pre-SB only, 25% had post-SB only, and 40.3% had both (prepost-SB). No differences in the rates of in-hospital and 30-day stroke, death, and stroke/death were observed among the three groups; in-hospital stroke/death in the pre-SB group was 1.4% (n = 25), post-SB 1.2% (n = 16), and prepost-SB 1.4% (n = 29; P = .92). However, patients undergoing post-SB and prepost-SB had higher rates of in-hospital transient ischemic attacks (TIA) (post-SB, 0.9%; prepost-SB, 1% vs pre-SB, 0.2%, P < .01) and postprocedural hypotension (16.6% and 16.8% vs 13.1%, respectively; P < .001). Post-SB also had longer operative times, as well as flow reversal and fluoroscopy times. On multivariable analysis, no association was seen between post-SB and the primary outcome of in-hospital stroke/death (post-SB odds ratio [OR], 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44-1.73; prepost-SB OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.57-1.70). Similarly, no significant differences were noted in terms of postprocedural hemodynamic instability and 30-day outcomes. However, post-SB and prepost-SB were associated with four times the odds of in-hospital TIA compared with pre-SB alone (post-SB OR, 4.24 [95% CI, 1.51-11.8]; prepost-SB OR, 4.76 [95% CI, 1.53-14.79]; P = .01). Symptomatic patients had higher rates of in-hospital stroke/death compared with their asymptomatic counterparts; however, there was no significant interaction between symptomatic status and ballooning in predicting the primary outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Post-SB was used in 65.3% of TCAR patients. This maneuver seems to be safe without an increase in the odds of postoperative in-hospital stroke/death. However, the increased rates of TIA associated with post-SB requires further investigation.

The management of carotid restenosis: a comprehensive review

Carotid artery stenosis (CS) is a major medical problem affecting approximately 10% of the general population 80 years or older and causes stroke in approximately 10% of all ischemic events. In patients with symptomatic, moderate-to-severe CS, carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS), has been used to lower the risk of stroke. In primary CS, CEA was found to be superior to best medical therapy (BMT) according to 3 large randomized controlled trials (RCT). Following CEA and CAS, restenosis remains an unsolved problem involving a large number of patients as the current treatment recommendations are not as clear as those for primary stenosis. Several studies have evaluated the risk of restenosis, reporting an incidence ranging from 5% to 22% after CEA and an in-stent restenosis (ISR) rate ranging from 2.7% to 33%. Treatment and optimal management of this disease process, however, is a matter of ongoing debate, and, given the dearth of level 1evidence for the management of these conditions, the relevant guidelines lack clarity. Moreover, the incidence rates of stroke and complications in patients with carotid stenosis are derived from studies that did not use contemporary techniques and materials. Rapidly changing guidelines, updated techniques, and materials, and modern medical treatments make actual incidence rates barely comparable to previous ones. For these reasons, RCTs are critical for determining whether these patients should be treated with more aggressive treatments additional to BMT and identifying those patients indicated for surgical or endovascular treatments. This review summarizes the current evidence and controversies concerning the risks, causes, current treatment options, and prognoses in patients with restenosis after CEA or CAS.

Intravascular Lithotripsy for Treatment of Calcified Lesions During Carotid Artery Stenting

Purpose:

To report the use of intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) in the treatment of calcified carotid artery lesions.

Materials and Methods:

The records of 21 high-surgical-risk patients (mean age 75.1±8.1 years; 17 men) who were treated at 8 centers for carotid artery stenosis ≥70% were retrospectively reviewed. Twelve patients had a history of cerebrovascular disease. All patients had heavily calcified carotid artery lesions: 19 de novo and 2 in-stent restenoses (ISR). The mean baseline stenosis was 82.3%±9.7%. IVL was utilized at the discretion of the operator, followed by balloon angioplasty. Embolic protection devices were used in all cases.

Results:

In 19 patients, IVL was followed by stent implantation; the 2 ISR lesions were dilated only. The mean IVL balloon diameter was 4.64±1.13 mm, and the mean number of IVL pulses applied was 67.2±61.4 (range 10–180). All procedures were technically successful (<30% residual stenosis). No patients developed symptomatic bradycardia or hypotension due to IVL, and there were no adverse events associated with IVL delivery. All patients were discharged on dual antiplatelet therapy. Seventeen days after the procedure, 1 patient experienced an ischemic stroke that was deemed due to aortic arch manipulation during transfemoral access. Carotid duplex ultrasound examination identified significant restenosis (>70%) in 1 asymptomatic patient at 12 months after the index procedure. No patients required reintervention during a median follow-up of 6 months (range 1–12).

Conclusion:

This preliminary experience demonstrates that IVL can be a safe and effective approach for the management of severely calcified carotid lesions. Further research is warranted to determine the longer-term safety and efficacy of IVL for dilation of calcified carotid artery lesions as an adjunct to carotid artery stenting.

Management of De Novo Carotid Stenosis and Postintervention Restenosis-Carotid Endarterectomy Versus Carotid Artery Stenting-a Review of Literature

The current literature indicates carotid endarterectomy (CEA) as the preferred treatment for symptomatic, moderate to severe carotid artery stenosis. However, recommendations for the management of acute tandem stenosis and complete occlusion, as well as postintervention restenosis of the carotid artery, remain controversial. Here, we review the literature evaluating these conditions and provide suggestions for clinical decision-making. Acute tandem stenosis or occlusion of the common and internal carotid arteries may be treated with angioplasty alone, reserving carotid artery stenting (CAS) or CEA for severe and complex cases. Patients who underwent CEA and developed ipsilateral restenosis may be subjected to angioplasty followed by CAS, which carries a lower risk of cranial nerve injury and subsequent restenosis of the artery. For post-CAS restenosis, current evidence recommends angioplasty and CAS for the management of moderate stenosis and CEA for severe stenosis of the carotid artery. Given the lack of level 1 evidence for the management of these conditions, the abovementioned recommendations may assist clinical decision-making; however, each case and its unique risks and benefits need to be assessed individually. Future studies evaluating and defining the risks and benefits of specific treatment strategies, such as CEA and CAS, in patients with acute tandem stenosis, occlusion, and postintervention restenosis of the carotid artery need to be conducted.

Cumulative incidence of restenosis in the endovascular treatment of extracranial carotid artery stenosis: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cumulative incidence of restenosis and stroke after stenting for cervical carotid artery stenosis.

METHODS

We reviewed PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Scopus and included all studies reporting restenosis after stenting. The cumulative incidence of restenosis at 6 and 12 months was calculated. We also estimated the cumulative incidence of ipsilateral stroke within 30 days after stenting. Random effect meta-analysis and meta-regression were performed using relevant study level covariates. Sources of heterogeneity were investigated.

RESULTS

Among 7765 records, 40 studies were selected. 15 943 patients and 16 337 carotid arteries were considered. The overall pooled cumulative incidence of restenosis >50% at 12 months was 5.7% (95% CI 3.8% to 8.6%), >70% at 12 months was 5.2% (95% CI 3.3% to 8.2%), >50% at 6 months was 3.9% (95% CI 2.2% to 6.8%), and ipsilateral stroke within 30 days after stenting was 1.6% (95% CI 1.0% to 2.5%) without association with the use of an embolic protection device. We did not identify any relevant source of heterogeneity of the cumulative incidence of restenosis >50% at 12 months. Mean age explained 80.9% (R²=80.9%, p=0.01) of heterogeneities of restenosis >70% at 12 months. The presence of hostile neck explained 53.9% (R²=53.9%, p=0.03) of heterogeneities of restenosis >50% at 6 months.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis showed a low cumulative rate of restenosis at 12 months and ipsilateral stroke within 30 days after stenting. Older patients and those with hostile neck present a lower risk of in-stent restenosis. The use of an embolic protection device was not associated with a lower risk of stroke.

Systematic and Comprehensive Comparison of Incidence of Restenosis Between Carotid Endarterectomy and Carotid Artery Stenting in Patients with Atherosclerotic Carotid Stenosis

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of the present study was to conduct a meta-analysis to systematically compare the incidence rates of in-stent restenosis after carotid artery stenting (CAS) and restenosis after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for patients with atherosclerotic carotid stenosis.

METHODS

We retrieved potential academic reports comparing restenosis between CEA and CAS from the MEDLINE, PubMed, and EMBASE databases and the Cochrane Library from the date of the first CEA (January 1951) to July 20, 2018. The references of the identified studies were carefully reviewed to ensure that all available reports were included in the present study.

RESULTS

Our meta-analysis included 27 studies (15 randomized controlled trials, 12 nonrandomized controlled trials) and 20,479 participants with atherosclerotic carotid stenosis. A statistically significant difference was found in the cumulative incidence of restenosis >70% between CEA and CAS (risk difference, -0.033, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.054 to -0.013; P = 0.002). For the restenosis >70% outcomes, although CEA was relevant with a lower rate of restenosis than CAS within 6 months (odds ratio [OR], 0.495; 95% CI, 0.285-0.861; P = 0.013) and 1 year (OR, 0.626; 95% CI, 0.483-0.811; P < 0.001), no statistically significant differences were found at 1.5 years (P = 0.210), 2 years (P = 0.123), 4 years (P = 0.124), 5 years (P = 0.327), or 10 years (P = 0.839). For the restenosis >50% outcomes, a significant difference was found in the rate of restenosis between the CEA and CAS groups within 1 year (OR, 0.317; 95% CI, 0.228-0.441; P < 0.001) but not at 1.5 years (P = 0.301), 2 years (P = 0.686), or 5 years (P = 0.920). No nominally significant effects were demonstrated with respect to the cumulative incidence of occlusion (P = 0.195) or the cumulative incidence of restenosis for symptomatic patients (P = 0.170) between CEA and CAS.

CONCLUSIONS

Although CAS was preferred over CEA, regardless of restenosis >50% or >70% after revascularization within 1 year, no significant difference was observed with extension of the follow-up period to >1 year. CAS was not associated with a greater cumulative incidence of occlusion or the cumulative incidence of restenosis for symptomatic patients.

The incidence of carotid in-stent stenosis is underestimated ≥50% or ≥80% and its clinical implications

BACKGROUND

The incidence of carotid in-stent stenosis has been reported to vary between 1% and 30%. Most published studies have short follow-up, which may lead to underestimation of the incidence of in-stent stenosis. This study analyzed the incidence of ≥50% and ≥80% in-stent stenosis using validated duplex ultrasound criteria and its clinical implications.

METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of 450 carotid artery stenting (CAS) procedures (February 6, 2001-December 19, 2016). All patients had postoperative carotid duplex ultrasound examination, which was repeated at 1 month, 6 months, and every 6 to 12 months thereafter. A Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate rates of freedom from ≥50% in-stent stenosis (internal carotid artery peak systolic velocity of ≥224 cm/s) and ≥80% in-stent stenosis (internal carotid artery peak systolic velocity of ≥325 cm/s), freedom from reintervention, and survival.

RESULTS

The mean age was 68.3 years, with a mean follow-up of 40.3 months. A total of 201 patients (45% [201/450]) had CAS for symptomatic disease. Primary CAS was done in 291 patients (65%); in the remaining 35%, CAS was done for postcarotid endarterectomy (CEA) stenosis. A total of 101 patients (23%) had ≥50% late carotid in-stent stenosis, and of these, 33 (7.4%) had ≥80% in-stent stenosis. Nineteen patients (4.3%) developed late transient ischemic attack and three (0.7%) late stroke. Twenty-three (5.2%) patients had late reintervention. Rates of freedom from ≥50% in-stent stenosis in the whole series were 85%, 79%, 75%, 72%, and 70% at 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, 4 years, and 5 years, respectively. The rates of freedom from ≥50% in-stent stenosis for primary CAS and CAS for post-CEA stenosis were not statistically significant (P = .540). The rates of freedom from ≥80% in-stent stenosis for the whole series were 96%, 95%, 93%, 90%, and 89% at 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, 4 years, and 5 years, respectively. The rates of freedom from ≥80% in-stent stenosis for primary CAS and CAS for post-CEA stenosis were also not statistically significant (P = .516). Rates of freedom from reintervention were 98%, 96%, 93%, 93%, and 91% at 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, 4 years, and 5 years, respectively, and there were no significant differences between primary CAS and CAS for post-CEA stenosis (P = .939). The overall late survival rates were 99%, 97%, 96%, 94%, and 91% at 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, 4 years, and 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of ≥50% in-stent stenosis is relatively high; however, the rates of ≥80% stenosis and late neurologic events are low. Longer follow-up of patients with ≥50% carotid in-stent stenosis may yield higher incidence of ≥80% stenosis.

Calcification in original plaque and restenosis following carotid artery stenting

Background:

The relationship between calcification in primary plaque and recurrent stenosis after carotid artery stenting (CAS) is not established, but an inverse association with restenosis following carotid endarterectomy (CEA) has been suggested.

Methods:

We retrospectively analyzed 75 plaques of 109 consecutive CAS with regard to calcification, using the calcium score and shape, location, and other characteristics of original plaques together with stenting-related factors. CAS was performed in a standard fashion with an embolic protection device. Greater-than-moderate restenosis (≥50%) was assessed by peak systolic velocity (PSV) with duplex ultrasonography (≥130 cm/s, internal/common carotid or distal/proximal PSV ratio ≥2.0).

Results:

Univariate analysis revealed percentages of dyslipidemia treated with statins (P = 0.03), calcification in distal ICA (P = 0.02), and immediate residual stenosis (P = 0.02) were significantly higher in patients with greater-than-moderate restenosis, whereas calcification in carotid bulb and usage of open-cell stent were rather less frequent (P < 0.001 and P = 0.02, respectively). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that rarity of calcification in carotid bulb was a sole independent predictor for greater-than-moderate recurrent carotid stenosis 1 year after CAS (OR = 0.21, CI = 0.06–0.77, P = 0.02).

Conclusions:

Calcium score was not significantly related to restenosis at 1 year after CAS, as was previously found following CEA, though scarcity of calcification in carotid bulb was suggested as a predictor of in-stent restenosis. Compared to post-CEA restenosis, carotid plaque calcification may be inversely but tenuously associated with recurrent stenosis 1 year post-CAS. No other stenting factors (e.g., stent design, pre-/post-dilation, or protection devices) showed a significant association with recurrent stenosis post-CAS.

Carotid endarterectomy for treatment of carotid in-stent restenosis: long-term follow-up results and surgery experiences from one single centre

Objective

Few studies have reported the surgical treatment of carotid in-stent restenosis (ISR), more data and longer follow-up are needed. We describe the surgical treatment of ISR by standard carotid endarterectomy (CEA) with stent removal, including long-term follow-up in 10 patients from our centre.

Methods

Ten patients from our centre who underwent CEA with stent removal for ISR were retrospectively analysed, including nine symptomatic and one asymptomatic ISR of at least 70% with mean age 67.3, the median time between carotid artery stenting and CEA was 17 months (range, 2–54 months).

Results

Standard CEA with stent removal was performed in all 10 patients without much technical difficulty (9 male and 1 female, mean age 67.3). Two cases were performed in hybrid operation room. There were a total of three complications that happened in three patients (30%) respectively. An asymptomatic dissecting aneurysm was formed on the petrous internal carotid artery in one patient who was followed up without intervention. In the second case, dissection occurred in the arterial wall distal to the site of the stent after stent removal revealed by intraoperative angiography, and another stent was implanted. The patient sustained temporary hypoglossal nerve dysfunction postoperatively. The third patient suffered cerebral hyperperfusion with complete recovery when discharged. No neurological complications occurred in other seven patients. After follow-up of 25 months (range, 11–54 months), one patient died of rectal cancer without ischaemic attack and restenosis 4 years postoperation; in one patient occurred recurrent symptomatic restenosis (90%) 1 year later; all other patients remained asymptomatic and without recurrent restenosis (>50%) by follow-up carotid ultrasound or CT angiography.

Conclusion

It seems that CEA with stent removal is a reasonable choice, by experienced hand, for symptomatic ISR with higher but acceptable complications. The indication of stent removal for asymptomatic ISR needs further observation.

Restenosis after carotid artery stenting

As a common etiology for ischemic stroke, atherosclerotic carotid stenosis has been targeted by vascular surgery since 1950s. Compared with carotid endarterectomy, carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) is almost similarly efficacious and less invasive. These advantages make CAS an alternative in treating carotid stenosis. However, accumulative evidences suggested that the long-term benefit-risk ratio of CAS may be decreased or even neutralized by the complications related to in-stent restenosis (ISR). Therefore, investigating the mechanisms and identifying the influential factors of ISR are of vital importance for improving the long-term outcomes of CAS. As responses to intrinsic and extrinsic injuries, intimal hyperplasia and vascular smooth muscle cell proliferation have been regarded as the principle mechanisms for ISR development. Due to the lack of consensus-based definition and consistent follow-up protocol, the reported incidences of ISR after CAS varied widely among studies. These variations made the inter-study comparisons of ISR largely illogical. To eliminate restenosis after CAS, both surgery and endovascular procedures have been attempted with promising results. For preventing ISR, drug-eluting stents and antiplatelets have been proposed as potential solutions.

Aortic Arch Calcification as a Predictor of Repeated Arteriovenous Fistula Failure within 1-Year in Hemodialysis Patients

Objectives

The aim of the study was to identify the factors associated with repeated arteriovenous fistula (AVF) failure within 1-year, especially the impact of aortic arch calcification (AAC) on patency of AVF.

Materials and Methods

We retrospectively assessed chest radiography in hemodialysis patients who had undergone initial AVF. The extent of AAC was categorized into four grades (0–3). The association between AAC grade, other clinical variables, and repeated failure of AVF was then analyzed by binary logistic regression analysis.

Results

This study included 284 patients (158 males, mean age 61.7 ± 13.1 years). Patients with higher AAC grade were older, had more frequently diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease, had lower diastolic blood pressure, and had higher corrected calcium and lower intact parathyroid hormone levels. In multivariate analysis, the presence of higher AAC grade (odds ratio (95% confidence interval): 2.98 (1.43–6.23); p = 0.004), lower mean corrected calcium (p = 0.017), and mean serum albumin level (p = 0.008) were associated with repeated failure of AVF.

Conclusions

The presence of higher AAC grade, lower mean corrected calcium and mean serum albumin level were independently associated with repeated AVF failure within 1 year in hemodialysis patients.