Abstract
Arteriovenous fistula (AVF) stenosis is a common problem leading to dialysis access dysfunction. The conventional balloon (CB) is the most commonly used device during angioplasty but suffers from poor durability of results due to neointimal hyperplasia-mediated recurrence. The drug-coated balloon (DCB) is an adjunct to balloon angioplasty that reduces neointimal hyperplasia, thereby improving post-angioplasty patency. Despite the heterogeneity of DCB clinical trials to date, the evidence suggests that DCBs of different brands are not necessarily equal, and that patient selection, adequate lesion preparation and proper DCB procedural technique are important to realize the benefit of DCB angioplasty.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Stenosis is the Achilles heel of the arteriovenous fistula (AVF), leading to dialysis access dysfunction. While conventional balloon angioplasty is the standard of care, long-term results are disappointing due to recurrence. Ensuring optimal outcomes from angioplasty of AVF stenosis requires effective dilatation of the vessel wall and prevention of neointimal hyperplasia (NIH). Drug-coated balloons (DCBs) have been developed to prevent NIH following angioplasty, and there is now increasing literature addressing its role in haemodialysis access.
Definitions
The following terms are used in this review. Conventional balloon (CB) refers to any semi-compliant normal pressure balloon with a rated burst pressure (RBP) that is typically under 20 atmospheres (atm), while high-pressure balloon (HPB) refers to any non-compliant balloon with RBP higher than 20 atm.
Target lesion primary patency (TLPP) is defined as freedom from clinically driven target lesion revascularisation, while access circuit primary patency (ACPP) is defined as freedom from repeat intervention in the access circuit or access circuit thrombosis.
Rationale for DCB Use
There are several contributing causes of NIH, leading to vessel wall thickening and formation of AVF stenosis, such as uraemia-induced endothelial cell dysfunction, haemodynamic stresses from increased blood flow, vessel wall injury from needling for dialysis and barotrauma during balloon angioplasty [1]. DCBs are semi-compliant balloons coated with an anti-proliferative drug (most commonly paclitaxel) and excipient. The deposition of paclitaxel onto the vessel wall aims to limit NIH by preventing the disassembly of microtubules, thereby inhibiting proliferation of vessel wall smooth muscle cells and neointima formation.
Evidence for DCB in Dialysis Access
While early retrospective studies suggested that DCB is promising in prolonging patency after angioplasty, several randomized clinical trials (RCT) have since been conducted with mixed results (Table 1). Comparison between these studies is difficult due to the heterogeneity that exists between these RCTs with regards to study population and technique. A review of the most pertinent studies will illustrate the challenges in interpreting the current evidence.
IN.PACT DCB RCTs
The IN.PACT AV Access study is a multi-centre RCT comparing the IN.PACT AV DCB (Medtronic) to CB angioplasty in 330 participants with AVF stenosis [2]. The RCT was positive with superior 6-month TLPP in the DCB arm (82.2% vs 59.5%, p < 0.001). Secondary endpoints such as ACPP and number of interventions to maintain patency at 6 months were also superior in the DCB arm. Recently published 12-month data continue to show DCB’s benefit (TLPP of 63.8% vs 43.6%, p < 0.001) [3].
Similarly, Irani et al. [4] reported superior outcomes in a single-centre RCT comparing the IN.PACT Admiral DCB (Medtronic) to CB in 119 participants (98 AVFs, 21 AVGs). The 6-month TLPP was 81% versus 61% (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.295–0.952, p = 0.03) in the DCB and CB arms, respectively. The benefit continued to be observed at 1 year with TLPP of 51% versus 34% (HR 0.615, 95% CI 0.381–0.993, p = 0.047).
Interestingly, Björkman et al. reported significantly worse TLPP with the IN.PACT DCB (Medtronic) compared to CB (88.9% loss of primary patency at 1 year in the DCB arm compared to 22.2% in the CB arm) in a single-centre RCT of 39 patients [5] which was discontinued due to slow recruitment (planned sample size: 140 subjects). While the small sample size may have explained these contrarian results to be due to chance, the AVFs in this study were relatively “young” (mean AVF age: 6 months), suggesting that DCB may not be suitable for vein walls which have not been fully arterialized. Indeed, subgroup analysis from the study by Irani et al. [4] showed that an older age of the dialysis access correlated with better response to DCB (loss of TLPP in the DCB arm was lower if the dialysis access was > 24 months old, HR: 0.46, 95% CI 0.21–0.98, p = 0.045).
Both Maleux et al. [6] and Roosen et al. [7] also reported negative RCTs with the IN.PACT DCB (Medtronic) failing to achieve significant improvement in primary patency compared to CB. The sample size of these two studies was small (Maleux: n = 64, Roosen: n = 34) which could explain the failure to demonstrate superior efficacy.
Lutonix DCB RCTs
The Lutonix AV trial randomized 285 participants in 23 centres from the USA with dysfunctional AVF to either the Lutonix AV DCB (BD) or CB [8]. The primary endpoint of 6-month TLPP was not met (DCB vs CB: 71 ± 4% vs 63 ± 4%, p = 0.06). The TLPP was statistically better in the DCB arm at 9 and 12 months, but not at 18 or 24 months [9].
The PAVE trial was a multi-centre RCT that randomized 212 patients across 20 centres in United Kingdom with AVF stenoses to either Lutonix AV DCB (BD) or CB [10]. The primary endpoint was similarly not met with no statistically significant difference in the 6-month TLPP (DCB vs CB: 71.7% vs 84.5%).
Passeo-18 Lux DCB RCTs
Moreno-Sánchez et al. reported negative results from a multi-centre RCT where 136 subjects with 148 AVF stenoses were randomized to Passeo-18 Lux DCB (Biotronik) or Passeo-18 CB (Biotronik) after achieving < 30% residual stenosis with Passeo 35 HP (Biotronik) HPB angioplasty. The TLPP at 6 months and 12 months was not significantly different between the two groups (DCB vs CB: 72.9% vs 57.7% at 6 months and 52.9% vs 47.4% at 12 months) [11].
Therasse et al. reported a multi-centre RCT with late lumen loss (LLL) as primary outcome. Despite a smaller LLL with the Passeo-18 Lux DCB group, the difference was not statistically significant (DCB vs CB: 0.64 vs 1.13 mm, p = 0.082). There was, however, a statistically significant improvement in TLPP with DCB at 12 months (62.6% vs 35.2%, p = 0.0014) [12].
Comparison of the Four Major RCTs
The two major IN.PACT DCB RCTs involving 330 (IN.PACT AV Access) [2, 3] and 119 (Irani et al.) [4] participants and the two major Lutonix AV DCB RCTs involving 285 (Lutonix AV) [8, 9] and 212 (PAVE) [10] participants represent the best data available currently and deserve further discussion (Table 2).
Study Population
The study population of the IN.PACT AV Access RCT is notable for a significant proportion of Japanese participants (112 of 330) [2], which may possibly contribute to better outcomes since the Japanese population has been reported to have longer AVF patency when compared to the international population [13]. Most participants in the study reported by Irani et al. are Asian, and there is also a similar distribution of AVF location with approximately 50% below-elbow AVF in both IN.PACT DCB RCTs, compared to approximately 30% in both Lutonix DCB RCTs. This similarity in the type of AVF and participant ethnicity of both IN.PACT DCB RCTs may have explained the almost identical TLPP in both studies. A significant proportion of AVF in the PAVE study are of “young” vintage and likely non-maturing (21.7% of AVF have not been used once before trial entry), which could have explained the negative outcome of this study since other RCTs have suggested poorer response to DCB in relatively young AVF [4, 5].
Trial Design and Procedural Technique
All, except that reported by Irani et al. are multi-centre studies with independent clinical events committee and core laboratory. Core laboratory analysis would have increased the quality and objectivity of stenosis measurements but is unlikely to affect the primary outcome measure (TLPP) since the decision to treat (thus ending TLPP) was determined by visual estimate of stenosis (common to all other three RCTs) during repeat fistulography and the presence of corresponding clinical or haemodynamic abnormality.
The IN.PACT AV Access, Lutonix AV and PAVE RCTs performed HPB angioplasty to pre-dilate the stenosis in order to achieve < 30% residual stenosis (which was an inclusion criteria in these studies), while the RCT reported by Irani et al. performed pre-dilatation with CB and did not require < 30% residual stenosis before recruitment. However, most participants in Irani’s study achieved < 30% residual stenosis after CB (DCB: 89.8%, CB: 78.3%) with inflation pressures (DCB: 16 ± 4.9 atm, CB: 20 ± 4.9 atm) that are similar to the other three RCTs (IN.PACT AV Access: 18.8 ± 6.7 atm, Lutonix AV: 22 ± 8 atm, PAVE: 24 atm), reducing the potential effect of this difference in trial design.
In both Lutonix AV DCB RCTs, the recommended DCB inflation duration was increased to 2 min towards the end of recruitment with only 25% and 24% achieving at least 2 min DCB inflation in the PAVE and Lutonix AV RCTs, respectively. A longer DCB inflation duration has been shown to increase vessel wall drug deposition in a porcine femoral artery model [14]. Furthermore, the Lutonix AV Global registry also showed that longer DCB inflation duration of > 120 s correlated with improved 6-month TLPP (120–180 s: 79.8%, 50–120 s: 67.9%) [15]. It is possible that both Lutonix AV RCTs could have met their primary endpoints if the protocol mandated DCB inflation duration was at least 120 s from the beginning. Similarly, it is also tempting to attribute negative outcomes from the Passeo-18 Lux DCB (Biotronik) RCTs reported by Moreno-Sánchez [11] and Therasse [12] to inadequate inflation durations of 45 and 60 s, respectively. Finally, the antiplatelet regimes following treatment are also different, as detailed in Table 2.
In the absence of a direct comparison between the different DCBs in a RCT to show their relative efficacy, it is uncertain if the difference in trial outcomes is related to the type of DCB or the above-mentioned factors.
Meta-Analyses of DCB—Not the Definitive Answer
The results from meta-analyses depend on the included studies and become outdated with the arrival of new evidence [16]. Meta-analyses published prior to the IN.PACT AV Access study [2] have reported varying results. For instance, Kennedy et al. showed benefit after DCB use [17], while Abdul Salim et al. and Liao et al. did not [18, 19]. More recent meta-analyses which included the IN.PACT AV Access study, such as that by Fong et al., showed improved TLPP with DCB in a patient-level meta-analysis of 11 RCTs (TLPP: 75.3% vs 58.1%, 51.1% vs 37.1% and 31.4% vs 26.0% at 6-month, 1-year and 2-years, respectively) [20]. Han et al. similarly reported benefit in a meta-analysis of 16 RCTs where DCB use was associated with a lower risk of TLPP loss (6-months: HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.42–0.66 and 12-months: HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.47–0.76) [21].
As with the published RCTs on DCB in AVF, there is also significant heterogeneity in the results from meta-analyses due to differences in selection criteria for studies to be included. For instance, Luo et al. reported no benefit with DCB in their meta-analysis [22] but excluded some RCTs [4, 11] due to the inclusion of AVGs in their study populations and included the more recently published negative PAVE RCT [10].
Mortality Concerns with DCB
Since the initial concern was raised for possible increased mortality following the use of paclitaxel-coated balloon and stents in the femoropopliteal artery [23], subsequent large real-world cohort analyses of administrative databases have not confirmed this finding [24,25,26]. Currently, there is no suggestion of increased mortality with the use of DCB in dialysis access [21, 27]. Any potential increase in mortality should be considered in the context of the patient’s life expectancy. Haemodialysis-dependent patients have a high background mortality rate and require repeated interventions to maintain dialysis access patency. Any increase in AVF patency could potentially provide significant improvement in their quality of life, such as the avoidance of repeat procedures and freedom from dialysis catheter dependence.
What have we Learnt About DCB in Dialysis Access Interventions?
Despite the heterogeneity in the evidence presented so far, there are certain points that are worth remembering when using DCBs in dialysis access interventions:
-
1.
Drug dose is not the only balloon characteristic that affects DCB efficacy.
-
2.
No “class-effect”: DCBs of different brands are not equal and are therefore not interchangeable.
-
3.
Maximizing outcomes when using DCB—adequate dilatation of stenosis (lesion preparation) and DCB procedural technique matter.
The Role of Drug dose on DCB Effect—Not Just a Numbers Game
There is evidence in animal models for increased NIH inhibition with greater doses of drug coated on DCBs [28, 29]. Data from meta-analyses show similar trend of greater efficacy with higher dose DCBs. For instance, Luo et al. reported that standard-dose DCBs (3.0 and 3.5 ug/mm2) were more effective than low-dose DCBs (2.0 ug/mm2) [22], while Fong et al. [20] reported TLPP advantage only with the standard dose DCB (3.0 and 3.5 ug/mm2) and not low-dose DCB.
While drug dose appears to influence DCB efficacy, there are other properties such as the excipient choice and drug crystallinity which can also affect the effectiveness of each DCB. The excipient plays important roles before (drug adhesion to balloon), during (drug transfer to vessel wall) and after (drug adherence to vessel wall for sustained response) DCB angioplasty [30]. Early studies show that paclitaxel-coated balloons without an excipient failed to inhibit neointimal hyperplasia [31]. Boitet et al. [32] postulated that the hydrophobic coating of certain DCBs led to lower distal drug embolization and higher vessel wall drug uptake, both desirable traits for a DCB. Furthermore, the crystallinity of paclitaxel affects its tissue uptake and persistence with crystalline paclitaxel showing a higher tissue concentration at 1 and 7 days after DCB inflation [33]. Therefore, the coated paclitaxel dose is likely just one of several parameters to affect the relative effectiveness of each DCB.
No “Class-Effect” with DCB
Animal studies have shown differences in the vessel wall drug deposition, distal tissue bed drug embolization and residual DCB drug concentration after inflation among the different DCBs [32, 34]. These differences are likely related to the unique characteristics of each DCB such as drug dose, excipient and coating uniformity [32, 35]. Given the potential effect of the various DCB’s proprietary designs (drug crystallinity, drug dose, excipient) on efficacy, DCBs should not be considered to possess “class-effect” [36].
Maximizing Outcomes with DCB
There are procedural techniques that can be optimized to improve outcomes when using a DCB [37].
-
1.
Avoid geographic miss with appropriate length of DCB.
The length of DCB used should be slightly longer than the balloon used for lesion preparation and should exceed the stenotic lesion by 5 mm on either side of the stenosis to ensure that the entire lesion is covered [38]. Angiographic roadmap technique may help to ensure accurate placement of DCB.
-
2.
Keep transit time to a minimum.
Keeping the time from insertion through sheath to balloon inflation across the stenosis to a minimum (ideally within 30 s) is important to reduce drug loss in the blood. Schorn et al. showed that 30 s transit time results in greater vessel wall drug concentration compared to 180 s transit time [14].
-
3.
Adequate DCB inflation durations.
Adequate DCB inflation duration is recommended to allow increased drug deposition onto the vessel wall. The inflation duration of DCB should be guided by the manufacturer’s instructions but generally be at least 2 min.
-
4.
Lesion preparation before DCB use (pre-dilatation to achieve < 30% residual stenosis).
The DCB is a semi-compliant balloon that serves to deposit the drug onto the vessel wall and cannot be expected to dilate the vessel wall effectively in all cases. Trerotola et al. reported that 20% of AVF stenoses required > 20 atm to efface the balloon waist [39]. This is much higher than the rated burst pressure of currently available DCBs. Unsurprisingly, Katsanos et al. [40] reported that 55% of subjects required HPB after DCB angioplasty to achieve satisfactory technical success in an earlier study where the DCB was used as the primary angioplasty balloon.
Performing optimal angioplasty to achieve satisfactory luminal diameter gain before the use of DCB is likely to improve outcomes with DCB by allowing increased drug penetration through intimal tears, facilitating DCB expansion and contact with the vessel wall [41]. This is reflected by the Lutonix AV global registry which demonstrated a significant improvement in the TLPP when vessel pre-dilatation was performed prior to DCB (77% vs 48.6%, p = 0.0005) [15]. Later studies such as the Lutonix AV [8] and IN.PACT AV Access [2] RCTs required < 30% residual stenosis after HPB angioplasty as inclusion criteria, reflecting the emphasis on optimal lesion preparation before DCB use.
Since failure to achieve < 30% residual stenosis after balloon angioplasty leads to a higher risk of failure after CB angioplasty [42, 43], all AVF stenoses should be treated with optimal angioplasty technique to achieve < 30% residual stenosis, even when DCB is not used. The standardization of pre-dilatation angioplasty techniques in recent RCTs may have led to better patency outcomes in the control groups of the IN.PACT AV and PAVE studies (12-month TLPP of 43.6% and 58.8%, respectively) [3, 10] compared to reported TLPP after CB angioplasty in meta-analyses (30–40%) [17, 20].
When Should DCB be Used?
Since using DCB entails an additional angioplasty balloon after adequate lesion preparation and added cost, it is prudent to select DCB for situations that will maximize its potential benefit. Subgroup analysis from Irani et al. showed greater benefit from DCB when used to treat re-stenotic lesions compared to de novo lesions. The better response of mature AVF to DCB has also been discussed earlier [4]. Therefore, the ideal situation to use DCB could be a restenotic lesion in a failing mature AVF.
Future Directions
Sirolimus is an anti-proliferative agent that has additional anti-inflammatory effects over paclitaxel. Sirolimus-coated balloons (SCB) have recently been developed after overcoming initial difficulties with coating sirolimus onto an angioplasty balloon. Tang et al. reported 6-month and 12-month TLPP of 83% and 58% in a single-arm pilot study of 33 patients with dysfunctional AVF [44]. The results from an ongoing multi-centre RCT comparing SCB to CB in AVF are keenly awaited [45].
The RCTs reported by Trerotola et al. [8] and Irani et al. [4] have selected a single stenosis as the study lesion, leaving other non-study lesions to be treated with CB. This may diminish the overall benefit of DCB since multiple stenoses in the AVF are common. Future RCTs conducted may benefit from studying the effect of DCB use on all stenotic lesions and use ACPP as the primary outcome measure. The ACPP measures the patency of the entire dialysis circuit and is arguably the better outcome measure than TLPP since it represents a more complete picture of the treatment burden to patients.
Favourable cost-effectiveness has been reported by Pietzsch [46] in the IN.PACT AV Access trial, Lau et al. in the Singapore healthcare perspective [47] and Kitrou et al. [48]. Despite these encouraging reports, it is not clear if treating more than one AVF stenoses in the circuit with DCB is cost-effective.
Conclusion
DCB is a welcome adjunct to CB for the treatment of AVF stenosis. Meticulous attention to lesion preparation and DCB technique is key to improved outcomes when using DCB.
References
Roy-Chaudhury P, Sukhatme VP, Cheung AK. Hemodialysis vascular access dysfunction: a cellular and molecular viewpoint. JASN. 2006;17(4):1112–27. https://doi.org/10.1681/ASN.2005050615.
Lookstein RA, Haruguchi H, Ouriel K, et al. Drug-coated balloons for dysfunctional dialysis arteriovenous fistulas. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(8):733–42. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1914617.
Holden A, Haruguchi H, Suemitsu K, et al. IN.PACT AV access randomized trial: 12-month clinical results demonstrating the sustained treatment effect of drug-coated balloons. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2022;33(8):884-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2022.03.606.
Irani FG, Teo TKB, Tay KH, et al. Hemodialysis arteriovenous fistula and graft stenoses: randomized trial comparing drug-eluting balloon angioplasty with conventional angioplasty. Radiology. 2018;289(1):238–47. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2018170806.
Björkman P, Weselius E-M, Kokkonen T, Rauta V, Albäck A, Venermo M. Drug-coated versus plain balloon angioplasty in arteriovenous fistulas: a randomized, controlled study with 1-year follow-up (the drecorest Ii-study). Scand J Surg. 2019;108(1):61–6. https://doi.org/10.1177/1457496918798206.
Maleux G, Vander Mijnsbrugge W, Henroteaux D, et al. Multicenter, randomized trial of conventional balloon angioplasty versus paclitaxel-coated balloon angioplasty for the treatment of dysfunctioning autologous dialysis fistulae. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2018;29(4):470–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2017.10.023.
Roosen LJ, Karamermer Y, Vos JA, de Jong GM, Bos WJ, Elgersma OE. Paclitaxel-coated balloons do not prevent recurrent stenosis in hemodialysis access fistulae: results of a randomized clinical trial. Ital J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2017;24(2):35–40. https://doi.org/10.23736/S1824-4777.17.01282-7.
Trerotola SO, Lawson J, Roy-Chaudhury P, Saad TF. Drug coated balloon angioplasty in failing AV fistulas: a randomized controlled trial. CJASN. 2018;13(8):1215–24. https://doi.org/10.2215/CJN.14231217.
Trerotola SO, Saad TF, Roy-Chaudhury P. The lutonix AV randomized trial of paclitaxel-coated balloons in arteriovenous fistula stenosis: 2-year results and subgroup analysis. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2020;31(1):1-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2019.08.035.
Karunanithy N, Robinson EJ, Ahmad F, et al. A multicenter randomized controlled trial indicates that paclitaxel-coated balloons provide no benefit for arteriovenous fistulas. Kidney Int. 2021;100(2):447–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kint.2021.02.040.
Moreno-Sánchez T, Moreno-Ramírez M, Machancoses FH, Pardo-Moreno P, Navarro-Vergara PF, García-Revillo J. Efficacy of paclitaxel balloon for hemodialysis stenosis fistulae after one year compared to high-pressure balloons: a controlled, multicenter, randomized trial. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol. 2020;43(3):382–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-019-02372-w.
Therasse E, Caty V, Gilbert P, et al. Safety and efficacy of paclitaxel-eluting balloon angioplasty for dysfunctional hemodialysis access: a randomized trial comparing with angioplasty alone. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2021;32(3):350-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2020.10.030.
Pisoni RL, Zepel L, Zhao J, et al. International comparisons of native arteriovenous fistula patency and time to becoming catheter-free: findings from the dialysis outcomes and practice patterns study (DOPPS). Am J Kidney Dis. 2021;77(2):245–54. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.ajkd.2020.06.020.
Schorn I, Malinoff H, Anderson S, et al. The lutonix® drug-coated balloon: a novel drug delivery technology for the treatment of vascular disease. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2017;112:78–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addr.2017.05.015.
Karnabatidis D, Kitrou PM, Ponce P, et al. A multicenter global registry of paclitaxel drug-coated balloon in dysfunctional arteriovenous fistulae and grafts: 6-month results. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2021;32(3):360–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2020.11.018.
Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up? PLoS Med. 2010;7(9):e1000326. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000326.
Kennedy SA, Mafeld S, Baerlocher MO, Jaberi A, Rajan DK. Drug-coated balloon angioplasty in hemodialysis circuits: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2019;30(4):483-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2019.01.012.
Abdul Salim S, Tran H, Thongprayoon C, Fülöp T, Cheungpasitporn W. Comparison of drug-coated balloon angioplasty versus conventional angioplasty for arteriovenous fistula stenosis: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Vasc Access. 2020;21(3):357–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/1129729819878612.
Liao M-T, Chen M-K, Hsieh M-Y, et al. Drug-coated balloon versus conventional balloon angioplasty of hemodialysis arteriovenous fistula or graft: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(4):e0231463. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231463.
Fong KY, Zhao JJ, Tan E, et al. Drug coated balloons for dysfunctional haemodialysis venous access: a patient level meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2021;62(4):610–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2021.06.006.
Han A, Park T, Kim HJ, Min S, Ha J, Min S-K. Editor’s choice–paclitaxel coated balloon angioplasty vs. plain balloon angioplasty for haemodialysis arteriovenous access stenosis: a systematic review and a time to event meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2021;62(4):597–609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2021.05.043.
Luo C, Liang M, Liu Y, Zheng D, He Q, Jin J. Paclitaxel coated balloon versus conventional balloon angioplasty in dysfunctional dialysis arteriovenous fistula: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ren Fail. 2022;44(1):155–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/0886022X.2022.2029487.
Katsanos K, Spiliopoulos S, Kitrou P, Krokidis M, Karnabatidis D. Risk of death following application of paclitaxel-coated balloons and stents in the femoropopliteal artery of the leg: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Am Heart Assoc. 2018;7(24):e011245. https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.118.011245.
Behrendt C-A, Sedrakyan A, Peters F, et al. Editor’s choice – long term survival after femoropopliteal artery revascularisation with paclitaxel coated devices: a propensity score matched cohort analysis. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2020;59(4):587–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2019.12.034.
Secemsky EA, Shen C, Schermerhorn M, Yeh RW. Longitudinal assessment of safety of femoropopliteal endovascular treatment with paclitaxel-coated devices among medicare beneficiaries: the SAFE-PAD study. JAMA Intern Med. 2021;181(8):1071. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.2738.
Ko DS, Bae GH, Choi ST, Jung J, Kang JM. Mortality is not associated with paclitaxel-coated devices usage in peripheral arterial disease of lower extremities. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):18214. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-97675-9.
Dinh K, Limmer AM, Paravastu SCV, et al. Mortality after paclitaxel-coated device use in dialysis access: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endovasc Ther. 2019;26(5):600–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/1526602819872154.
Milewski K, Afari ME, Tellez A, et al. Evaluation of efficacy and dose response of different paclitaxel-coated balloon formulations in a novel swine model of iliofemoral in-stent restenosis. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2012;5(10):1081–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2012.06.012.
Gemeinhardt O, Haase T, Schnorr B, et al. Improvement of outcome for treatment of “restenosis-prone” vascular lesions? Potential impact of the paclitaxel dose on late lumen loss in porcine peripheral arteries. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol. 2022;45(12):1822–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-022-03277-x.
Chang GH, Azar DA, Lyle C, Chitalia VC, Shazly T, Kolachalama VB. Intrinsic coating morphology modulates acute drug transfer in drug-coated balloon therapy. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):6839. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-43095-9.
Radke PW, Joner M, Joost A, et al. Vascular effects of paclitaxel following drug-eluting balloon angioplasty in a porcine coronary model: the importance of excipients. EuroIntervention. 2011;7(6):730–7. https://doi.org/10.4244/EIJV7I6A116.
Boitet A, Grassin-Delyle S, Louedec L, et al. An experimental study of paclitaxel embolisation during drug coated balloon angioplasty. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2019;57(4):578–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2018.11.019.
Granada JF, Stenoien M, Buszman PP, et al. Mechanisms of tissue uptake and retention of paclitaxel-coated balloons: impact on neointimal proliferation and healing. Open Heart. 2014;1(1):e000117. https://doi.org/10.1136/openhrt-2014-000117.
Kolodgie FD, Pacheco E, Yahagi K, Mori H, Ladich E, Virmani R. Comparison of particulate embolization after femoral artery treatment with IN.PACT admiral versus lutonix 035 paclitaxel-coated balloons in healthy swine. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2016;27(11):1676–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2016.06.036.
Faenger B, Heinrich A, Hilger I, Teichgräber U. Drug loss from paclitaxel-coated balloons during preparation, insertion and inflation for angioplasty: a laboratory investigation. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol. 2022;45(8):1186–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-022-03164-5.
Irani FG, Tan BS. Drug coated balloons: are they the holy grail for dysfunctional dialysis arteriovenous fistulas? Cardiovasc Interv Radiol. 2021;44(3):516–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-020-02690-4.
Lee HS, Kang J, Park KW, et al. Procedural optimization of drug-coated balloons in the treatment of coronary artery disease. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2021;98(1):E43–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.29492.
Kitrou P, Katsanos K, Georgopoulou GA, Karnabatidis D. Drug-coated balloons for the dysfunctional vascular access: an evidence-based road map to treatment and the existing obstacles. Semin Interv Radiol. 2022;39(1):56–65. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-1742483.
Trerotola SO, Kwak A, Clark TWI, et al. Prospective study of balloon inflation pressures and other technical aspects of hemodialysis access angioplasty. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2005;16(12):1613–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.RVI.0000183588.57568.36.
Katsanos K, Karnabatidis D, Kitrou P, Spiliopoulos S, Christeas N, Siablis D. Paclitaxel-coated balloon angioplasty vs. plain balloon dilation for the treatment of failing dialysis access: 6-month interim results from a prospective randomized controlled trial. J Endovasc Ther. 2012;19(2):263–72. https://doi.org/10.1583/11-3690.1.
DePietro DM, Trerotola SO. Choosing the right treatment for the right lesion, part I: a narrative review of the role of plain balloon angioplasty in dialysis access maintenance. Cardiovasc Diagn Ther. 2023;13(1):212–32. https://doi.org/10.21037/cdt-22-375.
Sidhu A, Tan KT, Noel-Lamy M, Simons ME, Rajan DK. Does technical success of angioplasty in dysfunctional hemodialysis accesses correlate with access patency? Cardiovasc Interv Radiol. 2016;39(10):1400–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-016-1401-7.
Zhu Z-R, Zou L, Xing Y, et al. Predictors of primary patency after percutaneous balloon angioplasty for stenosis of Brescia-Cimino hemodialysis arteriovenous fistula. Br J Radiol. 2020;93(1109):20190505. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20190505.
Tang TY, Soon SXY, Yap CJQ, Chan SL, Choke ETC, Chong TT. Utility of sirolimus coated balloons for salvaging dysfunctional arteriovenous fistulae: one year results from the MATILDA trial. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2021;62(2):316–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2021.04.014.
Pang SC, Tan RY, Choke E, et al. SIroliMus coated angioPlasty versus plain balloon angioplasty in the tREatment of dialySis acceSs dysfunctION (IMPRESSION): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2021;22(1):945. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-021-05920-3.
Pietzsch JB, Geisler BP, Manda B, et al. IN.PACT AV access trial: economic evaluation of drug-coated balloon treatment for dysfunctional arteriovenous fistulae based on 12-month clinical outcomes. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2022;33(8):895-902.e4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2022.04.014.
Lau CCA, Irani F, Shi L, et al. Cost-effectiveness of drug-coated balloon angioplasty compared with conventional balloon angioplasty for arteriovenous access flow dysfunction. Value Health Reg Issues. 2022;31:155–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vhri.2022.05.002.
Kitrou PM, Katsanos K, Spiliopoulos S, Karnabatidis D, Siablis D. Drug-eluting versus plain balloon angioplasty for the treatment of failing dialysis access: final results and cost-effectiveness analysis from a prospective randomized controlled trial (NCT01174472). Eur J Radiol. 2015;84(3):418–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.11.037.
Funding
This study was not supported by any funding.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The other authors have no conflict of interest to declare.
Human or animal rights
This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors. Institutional Review Board (IRB) review was not required for this paper. For this type of study, informed consent is not required. For this type of study, consent for publication is not required.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Da Zhuang, K., Irani, F.G., Gogna, A. et al. The Role of Drug-Coated Balloon in Haemodialysis Arteriovenous Fistula Stenosis Management. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 46, 1144–1153 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-023-03497-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-023-03497-9