Subscribe to RSS

DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1791222
Early and Midterm Outcomes of Percutaneous Arteriovenous Fistula Creation
- Abstract
- Introduction
- Early Clinical Outcomes
- Midterm Clinical Outcomes
- Cost-Effectiveness
- Comparison between Available Devices
- Discussion
- Conclusion
- References
Abstract
Surgical creation of arteriovenous fistulas has been the gold standard for vascular access in hemodialysis patients. However, recent advancements in endovascular technology, the need for alternative hemodialysis access options in nonsurgical candidates, and patient preference for nonsurgical approaches have led to the development of percutaneous arteriovenous fistula creation. Currently, there are two Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved systems, namely WavelinQ and Ellipsys. The aim of this article is to review the available literature on the outcomes of percutaneous arteriovenous fistula creation. Studies have reported high technical success rates for both the WavelinQ and Ellipsys systems. However, re-interventions were necessary for maturation, maintenance of patency, and treatment of complications. Reported re-intervention rates have varied across studies, device used, and patient populations, ranging from 0.46 to 2.7 per patient-year. While percutaneous arteriovenous fistula creation shows promise in terms of technical success rates, patency, and patient satisfaction, the rate of re-interventions adds to the overall procedural burden and may impact cost-effectiveness.
#
Keywords
arteriovenous fistula - hemodialysis - WavelinQ - Ellipsys - re-interventions - patency - maturationIntroduction
Traditionally, surgical creation of an arteriovenous fistula (AVF) has been the gold standard for establishing consistent and reliable vascular access in patients requiring hemodialysis (HD) over central venous catheters and arteriovenous grafts.[1] [2] However, surgical AVF (sAVF) is associated with unfavored complications such as failure to mature, aneurysmal formations, and thrombosis.[3] Maturation failure and early thrombosis contribute to high rates of abandonment or cannulation failure of sAVFs that are never usable, collectively falling under primary failure rate. In some studies, the primary failure rates are estimated to be between 20 and 50%,[4] [5] [6] which usually require revision or/and creating new dialysis access, or the use of central venous catheters. Moreover, one study found that close to half of all matured autogenous AVFs required intervention to maintain patency or treat complications.[7]
It is within this context that percutaneous arteriovenous fistula (pAVF) creation has emerged as a novel minimally invasive technique to address this void. Two distinct systems have been developed for pAVF creation. First, the WavelinQ system (Becton Dickinson, Franklin Lakes, NJ, United States) establishes an arteriovenous communication between the ulnar or radial artery and the adjacent vein a few centimeters distal to the perforating vein of the elbow. Two 4-Fr catheters (arterial and venous) are introduced using ultrasound guidance and aligned under fluoroscopy using magnets and markers. Second, the Ellipsys system (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, United States) involves navigating a needle under ultrasound guidance from the superficial arm vein into the perforator vein and then into the radial artery, followed by the insertion of a guidewire and a 6-Fr sheath. The device is then inserted, positioned, and activated to create a tissue-fused permanent anastomosis, and, if necessary, angioplasty may be performed to increase primary patency. Both systems utilize the deep communicating vein (perforator vein) in the upper forearm but differ slightly in their design, technique, and location of the AVF creation. Whereas the location of the WavelinQ AVF creation should be as close as possible to the perforating vein but just distal to it, the location of the Ellipsys fistula creation should be directly at the level of the perforating vein. The technical details have been previously described in the literature.[8] [9] [10] [11] [12] The overarching goal of this article is to review the available data on the early and midterm clinical outcomes of pAVF.
#
Early Clinical Outcomes
-
WavelinQ
In 2015, Rajan et al pioneered the investigation of the WavelinQ system's feasibility for providing HD access.[8] This was a single-arm prospective study that used the 6-Fr WavelinQ system in patients requiring long-term HD to create pAVF. The technical success rate was 97% (32 of 33 cases) with an average maturation time of 58 days. Four patient deaths occurred unrelated to the device or procedure. The cumulative patency at 6 months was 96.2%, with 24 of 28 patients (86%) successfully undergoing HD via pAVF. The study noted a re-intervention rate of 0.6 per patient that included coil embolization of the dominant brachial vein, thrombin injection, balloon angioplasty, and occasionally sAVF creation.[8]
Building on the work of the above-mentioned study, Lok et al in 2017 conducted a single-arm, prospective, multicenter Novel Endovascular Access Trial (NEAT) to evaluate the 6-Fr WavelinQ system's efficacy and safety in non-dialysis-dependent chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients.[13] The technical success rate was 98%, and within 3 months, 87% of the pAVFs achieved physiological suitability for dialysis (brachial artery flow ≥500 mL/min and vein diameter ≥4 mm or successful 2-needle cannulation). Furthermore, the functional usability of pAVF was 64% in patients who received dialysis within 12 months. Notably, a total of 24 secondary interventions were required to facilitate pAVF maturation, which corresponds with a re-intervention rate of 0.46 per patient-year, which is similar to the findings of an earlier study by Rajan et al.[8]
The Endovascular Access System Enhancements (EASE) study, similar to the first two trials, was a multi-operator, single-arm, prospective trial that aimed to evaluate the outcomes of the newer 4-Fr WavelinQ system.[14] A total of 32 patients underwent pAVF creation in the proximal forearm, with a preference for radial over ulnar arterial access. The study reported an overall technical success rate of 100%. The primary and cumulative patency rates were 83 and 87%, respectively, with a re-intervention rate of 0.21 per patient-year at 6 months. At 90 days, two-needle cannulation was demonstrated in 78% of the patients, with a mean time to cannulation of 43 ± 14 days. The EASE study demonstrated that the 4-Fr system was technically comparable to the previous 6-Fr generation in successfully creating pAVFs, offering additional benefits such as a lower periprocedural complication rate, more access options, and fewer postprocedural interventions.[14]
Berland et al further assessed the outcomes of 116 pAVFs successfully created with the 4-Fr WavelinQ system, using aggregated data from three prospective, multicenter, single-arm studies, which included EASE, EASE-2, and the EU post market clinical follow-up studies.[15] The patients were followed up at 1, 3, and 6 months and were evaluated for primary and secondary patency rates, time to maturity, and time to successful cannulation. In this study, the technical success rate was 96.7% (116 of 120). The primary and secondary patency rates at 6 months were 71.9 and 87.8%, respectively. Further, the average time to maturation and the average time to successful cannulation were 41 ± 17 and 68 ± 51 days, respectively. Only 3 of 120 patients (2.5%) reported device-related serious adverse events, and procedure-related serious adverse events occurred in 7 of 120 patients (5.8%). Thirteen re-interventions were performed in 13 of 120 patients (10.9%) through 6 months to facilitate maturation, and similarly, 13 re-interventions were performed in 11 of 120 patients (9.2%) through 6 months for pAVF maintenance. Combined together, these procedures accounted for a re-intervention rate of 0.55 per patient-year. The study demonstrated that pAVFs created with the 4-Fr WavelinQ system were safe and effective due to the low complication and re-intervention rates, as well as similar satisfactory patency and functionality as those reported in sAVFs.[15]
-
Ellipsys
In 2017, Hull et al[16] conducted a single-arm prospective study to investigate the Ellipsys pAVF creation device, reporting a technical success rate of 88% (23/26). At the 6-week mark, 77% of patients (20/26) met the primary clinical endpoints, defined as brachial artery flow exceeding 400 mL/min (lower than the usual threshold of 500 mL/min in other studies), dialyzable fistula, or fistula flow as assessed by ultrasound at follow-up. The study reported cumulative patency rates of 88 and 75% at 6 and 12 months, respectively. The investigators noted that 48% of AVFs required further interventions to maintain patency at the 6-week mark. These interventions included procedures such as balloon dilation of the juxta-anastomotic segment, brachial vein embolization, fistula or central venous outflow angioplasty, transposition of the target vein, basilic vein banding/ligation, and valvulotomy. The overall re-intervention rate at 12 months was 1.57 per patient-year, with a total of 36 additional procedures performed. The study reported no major device-related adverse events.[16]
Based on the outcomes of these early clinical studies, it was obvious that both devices have a high technical success rate with a robust rate of early physiologic and functional maturation, compared to the known traditional sAVF rates, and with an acceptable safety profile. These promising results prompted an expansion of the use of these devices on a larger patient population.
#
Midterm Clinical Outcomes
In the short term, studies have shown that both the WavelinQ and Ellipsys systems have high technical success rates (100 and 97%, respectively). However, a significant number of patients required additional procedures to facilitate pAVF maturation. For instance, 41% of patients in the study by Zemela et al required endovascular intervention after fistula creation.[17] Similarly, Hull et al reported that 67% of fistulas did not meet the primary endpoint at 4 weeks postprocedure and required further interventions to assist with maturation.[18] As such, these interventions significantly improved the overall patency rate during follow-ups ranging between 82 and 88% in different studies.[9] [17]
One year after Mallios et al[9] published their results, Hebibi et al described similar findings with the Ellipsys system with a reported technical success rate of 97%. Moreover, 28 of 34 (82%) patients had a successful two-needle cannulation within 10 days to 6 weeks after pAVF creation. Notably, 15 patients (44%) required no further access intervention and only 12 patients (35%) needed secondary angioplasty within 3 to 4 weeks to assist in maturation. Among the 12 patients who required re-intervention, 1 patient required cubital vein banding, 1 patient underwent valvulotomy, 2 patients needed superficialization, and 2 fistulas were surgically converted to resolve cannulation difficulties. None of the pAVFs developed aneurysmal degeneration, steal syndrome, or excessive blood flow.[19]
In contrast to the two previous studies, Sultan et al[20] reported a high secondary intervention rate (67%) to aid in access maturation and a high surgical conversion rate (20%) at 6 months of follow-up. Initially, 17 of 18 fistulas were successfully created, but 3 patients were lost to follow-up at the 6-month mark. Of the remaining 15 patients, only 7 fistulas (46.7%) were successfully used for dialysis or met the maturation criteria by ultrasound (blood flow >500 mL/min in either outflow vein) at 6 months. The authors proposed that earlier follow-up, outpatient community education, and early aggressive secondary-assisted maturation were needed to enhance the long-term patency and successful use of pAVFs.[20]
Following their first pilot study, Hull et al augmented their results by assessing the safety and efficacy of the Ellipsys system in a larger patient population comprising 107 patients; they reported a technical success rate of 95% without device-related complications.[21] Moreover, the fistula patency rates at 90, 180, and 360 days were 98.4, 98.4, and 92.3%, respectively. Second-stage maturation procedures were performed in 99 patients, with an average time to procedure of 35 days. These procedures included anastomotic balloon dilations, deep brachial vein embolization, cubital vein occlusion, accessory vein embolization, and surgical transposition. To maintain patency after maturation, 66 procedures involving angioplasty, embolization, and stent placement were performed at an average time of 177 days. The overall re-intervention rate was reported as 2.7 per patient-year, with a total of 271 secondary procedures performed in the first 12 months.[21]
In another study by Hull et al,[18] an initial technical success rate of 96.7% was achieved using the Ellipsys system. At 4 weeks postprocedure, 67% of fistulas did not meet the primary endpoint (mature fistula ready for dialysis defined by palpable fistula on physical examination and target vein flow volume of 500 mL/min on ultrasound). These fistulas underwent maturation procedures in stepwise progression that included balloon angioplasty, vein embolization, and vein banding as needed. The maturation procedures increased the mean brachial artery flow volume from 602.7 ± 305 to 857.8 ± 371.4 mL/min and the target vein flow volume increased from a mean of 188.9 ± 146.4 to 630.2 ± 437 mL/min. At 4 weeks of follow-up, 33% (20/60) had no maturation procedures. Additionally, Hull et al reported that 63% of patients required maintenance interventions, such as balloon dilation, vein embolization, vein banding, thrombectomy, valvulotomy, and uncovered stent placement. Patients requiring maintenance procedures had a mean target vein blood flow volume of 238 ± 509 mL/min, which increased to a mean of 798 ± 356 mL/min. The re-intervention rate was reported as 2.3 per patient-year. Only two patients achieved two-needle cannulation without an endovascular procedure or transposition. The cumulative patency rate at 180 days was 96%. Furthermore, the authors recorded two early fistula thromboses.[18]
The midterm clinical outcomes of pAVF were comparable to those seen in the short-term studies. In one study, Mallios et al reported a high technical success rate of 99% in a total of 234 patients who underwent pAVF creation from 2017 to 2019. The most common intervention required to facilitate fistula maturation was angioplasty of the anastomosis and perforator vein, needed in 35% of patients. At 1 year, the primary, primary assisted, and secondary patency rates were 54, 85, and 96%, respectively.[22] Beathard et al reported on 105 patients who underwent pAVF creation, allowing for a 2-year follow-up. The cumulative patency rate for the total cohort at 24 months was 91.6%. A post–access creation patient satisfaction assessment survey indicated a high level of satisfaction with the procedure.[23]
In summary, the technical success rate of pAVF creation is consistently high among the reported studies. However, unlike the promising results of the low re-intervention rate reported in the original studies, the subsequent studies conducted in real-world conditions demonstrated a higher rate of early re-intervention to promote pAVF maturation. However, once the pAVF is functionally mature, the patency rates are generally high, suggesting that pAVFs, despite requiring additional early re-interventions, can provide effective vascular access for dialysis.
The need for additional early re-interventions varies significantly between studies, ranging from 35 to 67%. This discrepancy may be due to the differences in patient population, procedural techniques, procedure learning curve, or follow-up protocols. These early re-interventions, while necessary for access maturation and the successful use of pAVF, add to the overall procedural burden for the patient and may impact the cost-effectiveness of pAVF creation. The need for early re-interventions highlights the challenges in achieving consistent maturation rates.
With the evolution of pAVF creation, additional techniques have been developed to improve the maturation rate and reduce the rate of re-intervention. These include angioplasty of the AVF anastomosis using a 5-mm semi-compliant balloon when the volume flow of the brachial artery was less than 500 mL/min after creation using the Ellipsys system. Additionally, angioplasty of the juxta-anastomotic segment is now performed in situations where spasm/narrowing occurs during fistula creation with the WavelinQ system. The safety of these techniques and their values in reducing the need for re-interventions to improve maturation is yet to be elucidated.
#
Cost-Effectiveness
The cost-effectiveness of pAVF creation compared to sAVF creation has been the subject of several studies, sometimes with conflicting conclusions. Some studies had shown that patients with pAVF creation required fewer re-interventions and had lower associated mean costs within the first year. Yang et al[24] showed approximately US$11,240 lower average postcreation procedure-related costs (per patient-year) compared to sAVF. The lower expenditures were found to be even more significant in a similar study by Arnold et al who cited a cost savings of US$16,494 with the creation of pAVF compared to sAVF per patient-year for incident patients.[25] Long term, pAVFs are projected to save the National Healthcare Service (NHS) €30 to 36 million over 5 years.[26]
Contrary to these results, Mulaney-Topkar et al[27] found that pAVF was not cost-effective compared to sAVF when looking at 5-year outcomes in the United States. This was primarily due to the four times higher upfront cost for pAVF creation and a relatively low additional increase in quality of life for pAVF. However, they noted that pAVF becomes cost-effective when the initial cost of sAVF creation exceeds pAVF by ≥US$600, or the additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained from pAVF exceeds 0.12 QALYs/y.[27]
#
Comparison between Available Devices
In a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database, Shahverdyan et al compared the outcomes of WavelinQ and Ellipsys from a single vascular access center.[28] This analysis showed no significant difference in the technical success rate between the two devices (97 and 100% for the WavelinQ and Ellipsys systems, respectively). Moreover, the secondary patency rate at 12 months was significantly higher in the Ellipsys group as compared to the WavelinQ cohort (82 and 60%, respectively). Additionally, the functional patency rate for WavelinQ and Ellipsys was 85.7 and 100%, respectively. Notably, the number of interventions per patient-years was significantly higher for Ellipsys (0.96) compared to WavelinQ (0.46). Finally, during the study period, access failure was higher in the WavelinQ group as compared to the Ellipsys group (37.1 vs. 15.4%, respectively), requiring a new percutaneous or surgical AV access.[28]
#
Discussion
The advent of pAVF creation has introduced a novel approach to establishing reliable vascular access in patients requiring HD. This minimally invasive technique has shown promising results in terms of technical success and patency rates, as well as patient satisfaction. However, a significant factor that warrants further attention is the rate of re-interventions.
Re-interventions are the procedures that are performed after the initial pAVF creation to facilitate maturation, maintain patency, or treat complications. The rate of re-interventions varies across studies and device systems. For instance, Rajan et al reported a re-intervention rate of 0.6 per patient using the WavelinQ system, which included coil embolization of the dominant brachial vein, surgical AVF creation, thrombin injection, and balloon angioplasty.[8] Similarly, Lok et al reported a re-intervention rate of 0.46 per patient-year, including basilic vein transposition, tributary vein embolization, ligation, angioplasty, thrombolysis, thrombin injection, and thrombectomy.[13]
The Ellipsys system procedures also necessitated re-interventions, with Hull et al reporting a re-intervention rate of 1.57 per patient-year. The re-intervention procedures included balloon dilation of the juxta-anastomotic segment, brachial vein embolization, fistula or central vessel outflow angioplasty, transposition of the target vein, basilic vein banding/ligation, and valvulotomy.[16] In a later study, Hull et al reported a higher re-intervention rate of 2.7 per patient-year, with a total of 271 secondary procedures performed in the first 12 months.[21]
These re-interventions, while necessary for the successful use of pAVFs, add to the overall procedural burden for the patient and may negatively impact the cost-effectiveness of pAVF creation. Furthermore, the need for re-interventions highlights the challenges in achieving consistent maturation and maintaining long-term patency of pAVFs.
Despite these challenges, pAVF creation offers several advantages over traditional sAVF creation. The minimally invasive nature of the procedure, shorter recovery times, and the potential for fewer complications make it an attractive option for many patients. Moreover, patient satisfaction with pAVF creation has been reported to be high, with patients appreciating the lack of an open surgical procedure, improved body image, and fewer outpatient visits and hospitalizations following pAVF creation. However, some studies noted difficulties with cannulation, suggesting the need for further training and education of the dialysis facility staff.[27]
#
Conclusion
The advent of pAVF creation has introduced a novel approach to establishing vascular access in patients requiring HD. This minimally invasive technique has shown promising results in terms of technical success rates, patency rates, and patient satisfaction. However, a significant aspect of these procedures that warrants further attention is the necessity for re-interventions to assist maturation and maintain patency.
Further studies are needed to evaluate patient selection, evolving procedural techniques, and new emerging devices, in order to increase clinical success, reduce re-intervention rates, improve cost-effectiveness, and increase patient satisfaction.
#
#
Conflict of Interest
None declared.
-
References
- 1 Sgroi MD, Patel MS, Wilson SE, Jennings WC, Blebea J, Huber TS. The optimal initial choice for permanent arteriovenous hemodialysis access. J Vasc Surg 2013; 58 (02) 539-548
- 2 Hajibandeh S, Burton H, Gleed P, Hajibandeh S, Wilmink T. Impact of arteriovenous fistulas versus arteriovenous grafts on vascular access performance in haemodialysis patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Vascular 2022; 30 (06) 1021-1033
- 3 Fokou M, Teyang A, Ashuntantang G. et al. Complications of arteriovenous fistula for hemodialysis: an 8-year study. Ann Vasc Surg 2012; 26 (05) 680-684
- 4 See YP, Cho Y, Pascoe EM. et al. Predictors of arteriovenous fistula failure: a post hoc analysis of the FAVOURED study. Kidney360 2020; 1 (11) 1259-1269
- 5 Al-Jaishi AA, Oliver MJ, Thomas SM. et al. Patency rates of the arteriovenous fistula for hemodialysis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Kidney Dis 2014; 63 (03) 464-478
- 6 Chan C, Ochoa CJ, Katz SG. Prognostic factors for arteriovenous fistula maturation. Ann Vasc Surg 2018; 49: 273-276
- 7 Huber TS, Berceli SA, Scali ST. et al. Arteriovenous fistula maturation, functional patency, and intervention rates. JAMA Surg 2021; 156 (12) 1111-1118
- 8 Rajan DK, Ebner A, Desai SB, Rios JM, Cohn WE. Percutaneous creation of an arteriovenous fistula for hemodialysis access. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2015; 26 (04) 484-490
- 9 Mallios A, Jennings WC, Boura B, Costanzo A, Bourquelot P, Combes M. Early results of percutaneous arteriovenous fistula creation with the Ellipsys vascular access system. J Vasc Surg 2018; 68 (04) 1150-1156
- 10 Nelson PR, Mallios A, Randel M, Jennings WC. Percutaneous arteriovenous fistula creation. Semin Vasc Surg 2021; 34 (04) 195-204
- 11 Rajan DK, Ahmed O. Percutaneous hemodialysis fistula creation. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2022; 33 (10) 1135-1142.e2
- 12 Abdel Aal AK, Jefferson X, Klusman C. et al. Devices and techniques for percutaneous creation of dialysis arteriovenous fistulas. Semin Intervent Radiol 2022; 39 (01) 66-74
- 13 Lok CE, Rajan DK, Clement J. et al; NEAT Investigators. Endovascular proximal forearm arteriovenous fistula for hemodialysis access: results of the prospective, multicenter Novel Endovascular Access Trial (NEAT). Am J Kidney Dis 2017; 70 (04) 486-497
- 14 Berland TL, Clement J, Griffin J, Westin GG, Ebner A. Endovascular creation of arteriovenous fistulae for hemodialysis access with a 4 Fr device: clinical experience from the EASE study. Ann Vasc Surg 2019; 60: 182-192
- 15 Berland T, Clement J, Inston N, Kreienberg P, Ouriel K. WavelinQ 4 French Investigators. Percutaneous arteriovenous fistula creation with the 4F WavelinQ EndoAVF system. J Vasc Surg 2022; 75 (03) 1038-1046.e3
- 16 Hull JE, Elizondo-Riojas G, Bishop W, Voneida-Reyna YL. Thermal resistance anastomosis device for the percutaneous creation of arteriovenous fistulae for hemodialysis. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2017; 28 (03) 380-387
- 17 Zemela MS, Minami HR, Alvarez AC, Smeds MR. Real-world usage of the WavelinQ EndoAVF system. Ann Vasc Surg 2021; 70: 116-122
- 18 Hull J, Deitrick J, Groome K. Maturation for hemodialysis in the Ellipsys post-market registry. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2020; 31 (09) 1373-1381
- 19 Hebibi H, Achiche J, Franco G, Rottembourg J. Clinical hemodialysis experience with percutaneous arteriovenous fistulas created using the Ellipsys® vascular access system. Hemodial Int 2019; 23 (02) 167-172
- 20 Sultan S, Langsfeld M, Chavez L. et al. Initial 6-month quality review of a percutaneous endovascular arteriovenous fistula program. J Vasc Access 2021; 22 (04) 540-546
- 21 Hull JE, Jennings WC, Cooper RI, Waheed U, Schaefer ME, Narayan R. The pivotal multicenter trial of ultrasound-guided percutaneous arteriovenous fistula creation for hemodialysis access. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2018; 29 (02) 149-158.e5
- 22 Mallios A, Bourquelot P, Franco G. et al. Midterm results of percutaneous arteriovenous fistula creation with the Ellipsys vascular access system, technical recommendations, and an algorithm for maintenance. J Vasc Surg 2020; 72 (06) 2097-2106
- 23 Beathard GA, Litchfield T, Jennings WC. Two-year cumulative patency of endovascular arteriovenous fistula. J Vasc Access 2020; 21 (03) 350-356
- 24 Yang S, Lok C, Arnold R, Rajan D, Glickman M. Comparison of post-creation procedures and costs between surgical and an endovascular approach to arteriovenous fistula creation. J Vasc Access 2017; 18 (Suppl. 02) 8-14
- 25 Arnold RJG, Han Y, Balakrishnan R. et al. Comparison between surgical and endovascular hemodialysis arteriovenous fistula interventions and associated costs. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2018; 29 (11) 1558-1566.e2
- 26 Rognoni C, Tozzi M, Tarricone R. Endovascular versus surgical creation of arteriovenous fistula in hemodialysis patients: cost-effectiveness and budget impact analyses. J Vasc Access 2021; 22 (01) 48-57
- 27 Mulaney-Topkar B, Ho VT, Sgroi MD, Garcia-Toca M, George EL. Cost-effectiveness analysis of endovascular vs surgical arteriovenous fistula creation in the United States. J Vasc Surg 2024; 79 (02) 366-381.e1
- 28 Shahverdyan R, Beathard G, Mushtaq N, Litchfield TF, Nelson PR, Jennings WC. Comparison of outcomes of percutaneous arteriovenous fistulae creation by Ellipsys and WavelinQ devices. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2020; 31 (09) 1365-1372
Address for correspondence
Publication History
Article published online:
07 November 2024
© 2024. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India
-
References
- 1 Sgroi MD, Patel MS, Wilson SE, Jennings WC, Blebea J, Huber TS. The optimal initial choice for permanent arteriovenous hemodialysis access. J Vasc Surg 2013; 58 (02) 539-548
- 2 Hajibandeh S, Burton H, Gleed P, Hajibandeh S, Wilmink T. Impact of arteriovenous fistulas versus arteriovenous grafts on vascular access performance in haemodialysis patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Vascular 2022; 30 (06) 1021-1033
- 3 Fokou M, Teyang A, Ashuntantang G. et al. Complications of arteriovenous fistula for hemodialysis: an 8-year study. Ann Vasc Surg 2012; 26 (05) 680-684
- 4 See YP, Cho Y, Pascoe EM. et al. Predictors of arteriovenous fistula failure: a post hoc analysis of the FAVOURED study. Kidney360 2020; 1 (11) 1259-1269
- 5 Al-Jaishi AA, Oliver MJ, Thomas SM. et al. Patency rates of the arteriovenous fistula for hemodialysis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Kidney Dis 2014; 63 (03) 464-478
- 6 Chan C, Ochoa CJ, Katz SG. Prognostic factors for arteriovenous fistula maturation. Ann Vasc Surg 2018; 49: 273-276
- 7 Huber TS, Berceli SA, Scali ST. et al. Arteriovenous fistula maturation, functional patency, and intervention rates. JAMA Surg 2021; 156 (12) 1111-1118
- 8 Rajan DK, Ebner A, Desai SB, Rios JM, Cohn WE. Percutaneous creation of an arteriovenous fistula for hemodialysis access. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2015; 26 (04) 484-490
- 9 Mallios A, Jennings WC, Boura B, Costanzo A, Bourquelot P, Combes M. Early results of percutaneous arteriovenous fistula creation with the Ellipsys vascular access system. J Vasc Surg 2018; 68 (04) 1150-1156
- 10 Nelson PR, Mallios A, Randel M, Jennings WC. Percutaneous arteriovenous fistula creation. Semin Vasc Surg 2021; 34 (04) 195-204
- 11 Rajan DK, Ahmed O. Percutaneous hemodialysis fistula creation. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2022; 33 (10) 1135-1142.e2
- 12 Abdel Aal AK, Jefferson X, Klusman C. et al. Devices and techniques for percutaneous creation of dialysis arteriovenous fistulas. Semin Intervent Radiol 2022; 39 (01) 66-74
- 13 Lok CE, Rajan DK, Clement J. et al; NEAT Investigators. Endovascular proximal forearm arteriovenous fistula for hemodialysis access: results of the prospective, multicenter Novel Endovascular Access Trial (NEAT). Am J Kidney Dis 2017; 70 (04) 486-497
- 14 Berland TL, Clement J, Griffin J, Westin GG, Ebner A. Endovascular creation of arteriovenous fistulae for hemodialysis access with a 4 Fr device: clinical experience from the EASE study. Ann Vasc Surg 2019; 60: 182-192
- 15 Berland T, Clement J, Inston N, Kreienberg P, Ouriel K. WavelinQ 4 French Investigators. Percutaneous arteriovenous fistula creation with the 4F WavelinQ EndoAVF system. J Vasc Surg 2022; 75 (03) 1038-1046.e3
- 16 Hull JE, Elizondo-Riojas G, Bishop W, Voneida-Reyna YL. Thermal resistance anastomosis device for the percutaneous creation of arteriovenous fistulae for hemodialysis. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2017; 28 (03) 380-387
- 17 Zemela MS, Minami HR, Alvarez AC, Smeds MR. Real-world usage of the WavelinQ EndoAVF system. Ann Vasc Surg 2021; 70: 116-122
- 18 Hull J, Deitrick J, Groome K. Maturation for hemodialysis in the Ellipsys post-market registry. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2020; 31 (09) 1373-1381
- 19 Hebibi H, Achiche J, Franco G, Rottembourg J. Clinical hemodialysis experience with percutaneous arteriovenous fistulas created using the Ellipsys® vascular access system. Hemodial Int 2019; 23 (02) 167-172
- 20 Sultan S, Langsfeld M, Chavez L. et al. Initial 6-month quality review of a percutaneous endovascular arteriovenous fistula program. J Vasc Access 2021; 22 (04) 540-546
- 21 Hull JE, Jennings WC, Cooper RI, Waheed U, Schaefer ME, Narayan R. The pivotal multicenter trial of ultrasound-guided percutaneous arteriovenous fistula creation for hemodialysis access. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2018; 29 (02) 149-158.e5
- 22 Mallios A, Bourquelot P, Franco G. et al. Midterm results of percutaneous arteriovenous fistula creation with the Ellipsys vascular access system, technical recommendations, and an algorithm for maintenance. J Vasc Surg 2020; 72 (06) 2097-2106
- 23 Beathard GA, Litchfield T, Jennings WC. Two-year cumulative patency of endovascular arteriovenous fistula. J Vasc Access 2020; 21 (03) 350-356
- 24 Yang S, Lok C, Arnold R, Rajan D, Glickman M. Comparison of post-creation procedures and costs between surgical and an endovascular approach to arteriovenous fistula creation. J Vasc Access 2017; 18 (Suppl. 02) 8-14
- 25 Arnold RJG, Han Y, Balakrishnan R. et al. Comparison between surgical and endovascular hemodialysis arteriovenous fistula interventions and associated costs. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2018; 29 (11) 1558-1566.e2
- 26 Rognoni C, Tozzi M, Tarricone R. Endovascular versus surgical creation of arteriovenous fistula in hemodialysis patients: cost-effectiveness and budget impact analyses. J Vasc Access 2021; 22 (01) 48-57
- 27 Mulaney-Topkar B, Ho VT, Sgroi MD, Garcia-Toca M, George EL. Cost-effectiveness analysis of endovascular vs surgical arteriovenous fistula creation in the United States. J Vasc Surg 2024; 79 (02) 366-381.e1
- 28 Shahverdyan R, Beathard G, Mushtaq N, Litchfield TF, Nelson PR, Jennings WC. Comparison of outcomes of percutaneous arteriovenous fistulae creation by Ellipsys and WavelinQ devices. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2020; 31 (09) 1365-1372