Arterial diameter ratio as a reliable predictor for upper limb steal syndrome in patients with arteriovenous fistula for hemodialysis

Dialysis Access-Associated Steal Syndrome in High-Risk Patients Undergoing Surgery for Hemodialysis Access: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Preventive Operative Techniques

This systematic review and meta-analysis examine preventive operative techniques in high-risk patients undergoing surgery for hemodialysis access to mitigate the risk of Dialysis Access-Associated Steal Syndrome (DASS). Chronic kidney disease often leads to end-stage renal disease (ESRD), necessitating dialysis. Successful vascular access is crucial for efficient dialysis, but complications, such as DASS, pose significant challenges. DASS redirects arterial blood flow, affecting populations undergoing arteriovenous access surgery. This study aims to assess preventive strategies, including distal revascularization with interval ligation (DRIL) and extension techniques. A systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Web of Science until 2022 identified 11 relevant studies. The inclusion criteria comprised non-pediatric hemodialysis patients reporting outcomes related to patency and complications. The data were analyzed using Review Manager 5.3.5 (The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen). Meta-analysis indicated a significant association between DASS and arteriovenous fistula (AVF) or arteriovenous graft (AVG) procedures. Radiocephalic AVF (RC-AVF) and distal endovascular AVF procedures were favored. Various interventions addressed venous narrowing, including simple plication and loop interposition. The Modified by Inserted Latex Link for Endovascular Repair (MILLER) technique, DRIL, Extension Technique, and Proximalization of Arterial Inflow (PAI) were assessed for arterial bypass graft and blood supply preservation. This study underscores the importance of individualized strategies in preventing DASS during hemodialysis access surgery. Prophylactic measures, such as the extension technique, show promise, while DRIL remains effective in treatment. Ongoing research is imperative for optimizing outcomes in this complex patient population.

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.