Comparative effectiveness of arteriovenous fistulas created with a nitinol extravascular support in patients with advanced kidney disease.

IF 1.6 3区 医学 Q3 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE
John F Lucas, Eric Secemsky, Yang Song, Mohamad A Hussain, Dirk Hentschel, Ken J Woodside, C Keith Ozaki, Alik Farber, Ellen Dillavou
{"title":"Comparative effectiveness of arteriovenous fistulas created with a nitinol extravascular support in patients with advanced kidney disease.","authors":"John F Lucas, Eric Secemsky, Yang Song, Mohamad A Hussain, Dirk Hentschel, Ken J Woodside, C Keith Ozaki, Alik Farber, Ellen Dillavou","doi":"10.1177/11297298251326967","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Use of a nitinol extravascular support implanted during AVF (arteriovenous fistula) creation has been gaining traction due to its potential to improve functional success and reduce interventions; however, comparative effectiveness data with traditional unsupported AVFs are lacking. The objective of this study was to compare outcomes of AVFs created with a vascular support device versus traditional unsupported AVFs in patients with advanced kidney disease.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a comparative effectiveness retrospective observational cohort study conducted using data from the prospective, multi-center, single-arm VasQ US Pivotal trial (extravascular support AVF group) matched with an unsupported AVF control group developed using Medicare claims data from the same surgeons that participated in the trial. Eligible control participants were Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries who underwent AVF creation (2017-2019). Endpoints included 6-month primary patency (primary endpoint), intervention rate, and functional success. Propensity score methods using inverse probability treatment weighting were used to examine the association between supported device use and outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 782 unsupported AVF patients were compared to the 144 supported AVF patients from the Pivotal study. Compared with unsupported AVFs, primary patency at 180 days was superior for supported AVFs (66% vs 36% for control; OR, 3.27; 95% CI, 2.15-5.17; <i>p</i> < 0.0001). Intervention rate for supported AVFs (0.97 per patient-year; 95% CI, 0.71-1.28) was nearly half of unsupported AVFs (1.91 per patient-year; 1.58-2.07; <i>p</i> < 0.0001). Functional success for supported AVF patients was significantly greater than unsupported AVFs at 90 days (43.4% vs 26.7%, respectively; <i>p</i> = 0.005) and 180 days (72.5% vs 53.7%, respectively; <i>p</i> = 0.004).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>AVFs created with extravascular support maintained higher primary patency, improved functional success, and had less reinterventions than unsupported AVFs. More patients may begin using their AVF for dialysis sooner with a lower risk of requiring a maturation procedure if created with extravascular support.</p>","PeriodicalId":56113,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Vascular Access","volume":" ","pages":"11297298251326967"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Vascular Access","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/11297298251326967","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Use of a nitinol extravascular support implanted during AVF (arteriovenous fistula) creation has been gaining traction due to its potential to improve functional success and reduce interventions; however, comparative effectiveness data with traditional unsupported AVFs are lacking. The objective of this study was to compare outcomes of AVFs created with a vascular support device versus traditional unsupported AVFs in patients with advanced kidney disease.

Methods: This was a comparative effectiveness retrospective observational cohort study conducted using data from the prospective, multi-center, single-arm VasQ US Pivotal trial (extravascular support AVF group) matched with an unsupported AVF control group developed using Medicare claims data from the same surgeons that participated in the trial. Eligible control participants were Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries who underwent AVF creation (2017-2019). Endpoints included 6-month primary patency (primary endpoint), intervention rate, and functional success. Propensity score methods using inverse probability treatment weighting were used to examine the association between supported device use and outcomes.

Results: A total of 782 unsupported AVF patients were compared to the 144 supported AVF patients from the Pivotal study. Compared with unsupported AVFs, primary patency at 180 days was superior for supported AVFs (66% vs 36% for control; OR, 3.27; 95% CI, 2.15-5.17; p < 0.0001). Intervention rate for supported AVFs (0.97 per patient-year; 95% CI, 0.71-1.28) was nearly half of unsupported AVFs (1.91 per patient-year; 1.58-2.07; p < 0.0001). Functional success for supported AVF patients was significantly greater than unsupported AVFs at 90 days (43.4% vs 26.7%, respectively; p = 0.005) and 180 days (72.5% vs 53.7%, respectively; p = 0.004).

Conclusions: AVFs created with extravascular support maintained higher primary patency, improved functional success, and had less reinterventions than unsupported AVFs. More patients may begin using their AVF for dialysis sooner with a lower risk of requiring a maturation procedure if created with extravascular support.

镍钛诺血管外支架治疗晚期肾病患者动静脉瘘的比较疗效
背景:在AVF(动静脉瘘)创建过程中植入镍钛诺血管外支架的应用越来越受到关注,因为它具有提高功能成功率和减少干预的潜力;然而,缺乏与传统无支持avf的比较有效性数据。本研究的目的是比较晚期肾脏疾病患者采用血管支持装置与传统无支持的avf的结果。方法:这是一项比较有效的回顾性观察队列研究,使用前瞻性、多中心、单臂VasQ US Pivotal试验(血管外支持AVF组)的数据与无支持AVF对照组的数据进行比较,该对照组使用来自参与该试验的同一外科医生的医疗保险索赔数据。符合条件的对照参与者是接受AVF创建的医疗保险按服务收费受益人(2017-2019)。终点包括6个月的主要通畅(主要终点)、干预率和功能成功。使用反概率处理加权的倾向评分方法来检查支持设备使用与结果之间的关联。结果:共有782名无支持的AVF患者与来自Pivotal研究的144名支持的AVF患者进行了比较。与未支持的avf相比,支持的avf在180天的初级通畅性优于对照组(66%比36%;或者,3.27;95% ci, 2.15-5.17;P P = 0.005)和180天(分别为72.5% vs 53.7%;p = 0.004)。结论:与无支持的avf相比,有血管外支持的avf保持了更高的初级通畅,提高了功能成功率,并且再次干预较少。如果有血管外支持,更多的患者可能会更快地开始使用AVF进行透析,并且需要成熟手术的风险较低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Vascular Access
Journal of Vascular Access 医学-外周血管病
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
31.60%
发文量
181
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Vascular Access (JVA) is issued six times per year; it considers the publication of original manuscripts dealing with clinical and laboratory investigations in the fast growing field of vascular access. In addition reviews, case reports and clinical trials are welcome, as well as papers dedicated to more practical aspects covering new devices and techniques. All contributions, coming from all over the world, undergo the peer-review process. The Journal of Vascular Access is divided into independent sections, each led by Editors of the highest scientific level: • Dialysis • Oncology • Interventional radiology • Nutrition • Nursing • Intensive care Correspondence related to published papers is also welcome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信