Network meta-analysis of trials comparing first line endovascular treatments for arteriovenous fistula stenosis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tripsianis Gregory ◽  
Christaina Eleni ◽  
Argyriou Christos ◽  
Georgakarakos Efstratios ◽  
Georgiadis S. George ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Arteriovenous Fistula ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
First Line ◽  
Arteriovenous Fistula Stenosis

scholarly journals Efficacy of high-pressure balloon for the treatment of arteriovenous fistula stenosis: a meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yu Li ◽  
Wenhao Cui ◽  
Jukun Wang ◽  
Chao Zhang ◽  
Tao Luo
Keyword(s):  
High Pressure ◽  
Arteriovenous Fistula ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Technical Success Rate ◽  
Stenosis Rate ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Arteriovenous Fistula Stenosis ◽  
Using Data ◽  
The Cochrane Library

AbstractObjectiveThe objective of the present study was to compare the effectiveness of high-pressure balloon (HPB) versus conventional balloon angioplasty (BA) in treating arteriovenous fistula (AVF) stenosis.Materials and MethodsA meta-analysis was conducted using data acquired from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, SinoMed, CNKI, WanFang and VIP databases from the time the databases were established to November 2020. All analyses included in the studies comprised the subgroups of HPB and BA. The patency of AVF was compared between the two groups at 3 months, 6 months and 12 months after operation.ResultsNine studies comprising 475 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled results revealed that stenosis rate of AVFs treated with HPB was significantly lower than that of AVFs treated with conventional balloon at 3 months (OR= 0.37, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.67, p<0.001) and 6 months after operation (OR= 0.33, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.75, p=0.008). In addition, the technical success rate of HPB groups was high (OR= 0.14, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.35, p<0.001). However, no significant difference was observed between the experimental and control groups at 12 months after operation (OR= 0.61, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.25, p=0.18). No significant publication bias was observed in the analyses.ConclusionHPB is a potential primary option for the treatment of AVF stenosis, with a lower 3- and 6-month stenosis rate than BA. However, the long-term effect of HPB was not satisfactory; therefore, further research should be conducted to elucidate the relationship between the two groups.

scholarly journals Efficacy of High-Pressure Balloon for the Treatment of Arteriovenous Fistula Stenosis: A Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. 152660282110586
Author(s):  
Yu Li ◽  
Wenhao Cui ◽  
Jukun Wang ◽  
Chao Zhang ◽  
Tao Luo
Keyword(s):  
High Pressure ◽  
Arteriovenous Fistula ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Restenosis Rate ◽  
Technical Success Rate ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Arteriovenous Fistula Stenosis ◽  
Using Data ◽  
Meta Analyses

Objective: The objective of the present study was to compare the effectiveness of high-pressure balloon (HPB) versus conventional balloon (CB) angioplasty in treating arteriovenous fistula (AVF) stenosis. Materials and Methods: A meta-analysis was conducted using data acquired from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, SinoMed, CNKI, WanFang, and VIP databases from the time the databases were established to December 2020. All analyses included in the studies comprised the subgroups of HPB and CB. The patency rates of AVF were compared between 2 groups at 3, 6, and 12 months after operation. Results: Seven studies comprising 364 patients were included in the meta-analyses. The pooled results revealed that restenosis rate of AVFs treated with HPB was significantly lower than that of AVFs treated with CB at 3 months (odds ratio [OR] = 0.32, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.16 to 0.61, p<0.001) and 6 months after operation (OR= 0.29, 95% CI = 0.11 to 0.79, p = 0.01). In addition, the technical success rate of HPB groups was higher (OR = 0.13, 95% CI = 0.05 to 0.36, p<0.001). However, no significant difference was observed between HPB and CB groups at 12 months after operation (OR = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.30 to 1.52, p = 0.35). No significant publication bias was observed in the analyses. Conclusion: High-pressure balloon is a potential option for the treatment of AVF stenosis, with a lower 3- and 6-month restenosis rate than CB. However, 12-month patency rate of HPB was not superior to CB. Therefore, further studies should be conducted to investigate the mechanisms of restenosis after angioplasty.

ДИАГНОСТИКА ХРОНИЧЕСКИХ ИНДУЦИРОВАННЫХ КРАПИВНИЦ

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
E.Yu. Borzova
Keyword(s):  
Biological Therapy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Treatment Algorithm ◽  
The Novel ◽  
First Line ◽  
Systemic Reactions ◽  
Significant Impairment ◽  
Challenge Tests ◽  
First Line Treatment

Хронические индуцированные крапивницы имеют важное социально-экономическое значение вследствие риска развития системных реакций и значительного снижения качества жизни пациентов. Диагностика хронических индуцированных крапивниц основывается на анамнестических данных и проведении провокационных тестов. Современный протокол ведения больных хронической крапивницей включает применение неседативных антигистаминных препаратов. Международные согласительные документы по лечению крапивницы рекомендуют 4-кратное увеличение суточной дозы неседативных антигистаминных препаратов при их неэффективности в стандартных дозах. Данные мета-анализа указывают на эффективность омализумаба при хронических индуцированных крапивницах. В перспективе ожидается расширение арсенала генно-инженерной биологической терапии хронических индуцированных крапивниц.Chronic inducible urticarias are characterized by the risks of systemic reactions and a significant impairment of patients quality of life. The diagnosis of chronic inducible urticarias relies on the patients history and the challenge tests. A treatment algorithm for the management of chronic inducible urticarias includes nonsedating antihistamines as a first-line treatment. The international guidelines for the management of chronic inducible urticarias recommend updosing of nonsedating antihistamines up to four fold if standard doses are not effective. The meta-analysis suggests the efficacy of omalizumab in chronic inducible urticarias. In the prospect, the novel options of biological therapy for chronic inducible urticarias are expected.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document