Abstract: TH-PO269
A Comparison Between the Efficacy and Safety of Endovascular Arteriovenous Fistula Creation and Surgically Created Fistulas: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Session Information
- Vascular Access: From Biology to Managing Complications
November 03, 2022 | Location: Exhibit Hall, Orange County Convention Center‚ West Building
Abstract Time: 10:00 AM - 12:00 PM
Category: Dialysis
- 703 Dialysis: Vascular Access
Author
- Shimamura, Yoshinosuke, Teine Keijinkai Byoin, Sapporo, Japan
Group or Team Name
- Scientific Review WorkshopS Peer Support Group (SRWS-PSG)
Background
Endovascular arteriovenous fistula (eAVF) is a novel strategy for hemodialysis vascular access. We aimed to determine whether eAVF had better clinical efficacy and safety than surgical AVF (sAVF) in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD).
Methods
In May 2021, we searched Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Clinical Trials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials and observational studies that had assessed the efficacy and safety outcomes of eAVF compared with sAVF in patients with CKD requiring AVF creation. Pairs of two authors independently and in duplicate extracted data, assessed the risk of bias, and rated certainty of evidence. Using random-effects models, pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for binary outcomes, and median differences (MDs) with 95% CIs were calculated for continuous outcomes. Heterogeneity and certainty of evidence were assessed using the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.
Results
In seven studies (860 patients), ORs (95% CIs) for fistula maturation, procedural technical success, and all adverse events were 0.58 (0.05–6.91), 0.69 (0.04–11.98), and 6.31 (0.64–62.22), respectively. eAVF incurred less medical expenditure than sAVF (MD, USD $12,760; 95% CI -197,100 to -58,200). No studies reported patient satisfaction. The certainty of evidence was very low in most outcomes.
Conclusion
eAVF use in routine clinical practice for patients with CKD is limited. Multicenter randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm the efficacy and safety of eAVFs in selected populations.
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagram
Forest plot for the primary outcome