Cochrane · systematic review · CD013293
Interventions for thrombosed haemodialysis arteriovenous fistulas and grafts
Fonseca, AV, Toledo Barros, MG, Baptista-Silva, JCC, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2024 · Cochrane Library
Kidney and TransplantAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
64
current version
GRADE rated
32
No studies
32
Included studies
NR
No studies 32 · 50%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 31 · 48.4%Low 1 · 1.6%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Surgical thrombectomy compared to pulse spray technique for thrombosed haemodialysis arteriovenous fistulas and grafts
Population: thrombosed haemodialysis arteriovenous fistulas and grafts
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Patency at 30 days Surgical thrombectomy vs pulse spray technique | RR 1.05 [0.86, 1.29] | 2 studies · 100 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Failure Surgical thrombectomy vs pulse spray technique | RR 0.67 [0.14, 3.17] | 1 study · 20 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Technical success Surgical thrombectomy vs pulse spray technique | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Access dysfunction Surgical thrombectomy vs pulse spray technique | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Successful dialysis Surgical thrombectomy vs pulse spray technique | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Major adverse events Surgical thrombectomy vs pulse spray technique | RR 0.33 [0.02, 7.32] | 1 study · 20 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Minor adverse events Surgical thrombectomy vs pulse spray technique | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Death Surgical thrombectomy vs pulse spray technique | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Surgical thrombectomy compared to mechanical thrombectomy for thrombosed haemodialysis arteriovenous fistulas and grafts
Population: thrombosed haemodialysis arteriovenous fistulas and grafts
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Patency at 30 days Surgical thrombectomy vs mechanical thrombectomy | RR 1.34 [1.07, 1.67] | 3 studies · 404 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Failure Surgical thrombectomy vs mechanical thrombectomy | RR 0.92 [0.64, 1.32] | 3 studies · 404 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Technical success Surgical thrombectomy vs mechanical thrombectomy | RR 0.97 [0.85, 1.1] | 2 studies · 251 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Access dysfunction Surgical thrombectomy vs mechanical thrombectomy | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Successful dialysis Surgical thrombectomy vs mechanical thrombectomy | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Major adverse events Surgical thrombectomy vs mechanical thrombectomy | RR 1.98 [0.78, 5.03] | 3 studies · 404 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Minor adverse events Surgical thrombectomy vs mechanical thrombectomy | RR 0.89 [0.54, 1.48] | 3 studies · 404 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Death Surgical thrombectomy vs mechanical thrombectomy | RR 1.15 [0.17, 7.99] | 1 study · 153 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Mechanical thrombectomy compared to pulse spray technique for thrombosed haemodialysis arteriovenous fistulas and grafts
Population: thrombosed haemodialysis arteriovenous fistulas and grafts
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Patency at 30 days Mechanical thrombectomy vs pulse spray technique | RR 0.96 [0.82, 1.12] | 3 studies · 372 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Failure Mechanical thrombectomy vs pulse spray technique | RR 0.72 [0.41, 1.25] | 3 studies · 372 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Technical success Mechanical thrombectomy vs pulse spray technique | RR 1.04 [0.94, 1.14] | 3 studies · 372 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Access dysfunction Mechanical thrombectomy vs pulse spray technique | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Successful dialysis Mechanical thrombectomy vs pulse spray technique | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Major adverse events Mechanical thrombectomy vs pulse spray technique | RR 1.26 [0.54, 2.92] | 3 studies · 372 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Minor adverse events Mechanical thrombectomy vs pulse spray technique | RR 0.7 [0.1, 4.98] | 2 studies · 252 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Death Mechanical thrombectomy vs pulse spray technique | RR 6.56 [0.35, 124.23] | 1 study · 120 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Mechanical thrombectomy compared to continuous infusion for thrombosed haemodialysis arteriovenous fistulas and grafts
Population: thrombosed haemodialysis arteriovenous fistulas and grafts
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Patency at 30 days Mechanical thrombectomy vs continuous infusion | RR 0.93 [0.84, 1.02] | 2 studies · 118 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Failure Mechanical thrombectomy vs continuous infusion | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Technical success Mechanical thrombectomy vs continuous infusion | RR 1 [0.87, 1.15] | 1 study · 40 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Access dysfunction Mechanical thrombectomy vs continuous infusion | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Successful dialysis Mechanical thrombectomy vs continuous infusion | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Major adverse events Mechanical thrombectomy vs continuous infusion | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Minor adverse events Mechanical thrombectomy vs continuous infusion | RR 0.32 [0.09, 1.16] | 2 studies · 118 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Death Mechanical thrombectomy vs continuous infusion | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Surgical thrombectomy compared to continuous infusion for thrombosed haemodialysis arteriovenous fistulas and grafts
Population: thrombosed haemodialysis arteriovenous fistulas and grafts
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Patency at 30 days Surgical thrombectomy vs continuous infusion | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Failure Surgical thrombectomy vs continuous infusion | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Technical Success Surgical thrombectomy vs continuous infusion | RR 1.41 [0.96, 2.06] | 1 study · 31 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Access dysfunction Surgical thrombectomy vs continuous infusion | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Successful dialysis Surgical thrombectomy vs continuous infusion | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Major adverse events Surgical thrombectomy vs continuous infusion | RR 0.13 [0.01, 2.4] | 1 study · 31 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Minor adverse events Surgical thrombectomy vs continuous infusion | RR 0.19 [0.02, 1.43] | 1 study · 31 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Death Surgical thrombectomy vs continuous infusion | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Continuous Infusion compared to pulse spray technique for thrombosed haemodialysis arteriovenous fistulas and grafts
Population: thrombosed haemodialysis arteriovenous fistulas and grafts
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Patency at 30 days Continuous Infusion vs pulse spray technique | RR 0.92 [0.67, 1.27] | 1 study · 30 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Failure Continuous Infusion vs pulse spray technique | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Technical success Continuous Infusion vs pulse spray technique | RR 1.07 [0.89, 1.28] | 1 study · 30 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Access dysfunction Continuous Infusion vs pulse spray technique | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Successful dialysis Continuous Infusion vs pulse spray technique | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Major adverse events Continuous Infusion vs pulse spray technique | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Minor adverse events Continuous Infusion vs pulse spray technique | RR 1 [0.07, 14.55] | 1 study · 30 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Death Continuous Infusion vs pulse spray technique | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Pharmacomechanical thrombolysis (Cragg® catheter) compared to pulse spray technique for thrombosed haemodialysis arteriovenous fistulas and grafts
Population: thrombosed haemodialysis arteriovenous fistulas and grafts
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Patency at 30 days Pharmacomechanical thrombolysis (Cragg® catheter) vs pulse spray technique | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Failure Pharmacomechanical thrombolysis (Cragg® catheter) vs pulse spray technique | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Technical success Pharmacomechanical thrombolysis (Cragg® catheter) vs pulse spray technique | RR 0.96 [0.87, 1.06] | 1 study · 77 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Access dysfunction Pharmacomechanical thrombolysis (Cragg® catheter) vs pulse spray technique | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Successful dialysis Pharmacomechanical thrombolysis (Cragg® catheter) vs pulse spray technique | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Minor adverse events Pharmacomechanical thrombolysis (Cragg® catheter) vs pulse spray technique | RR 1.98 [0.41, 9.57] | 1 study · 77 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Major adverse events Pharmacomechanical thrombolysis (Cragg® catheter) vs pulse spray technique | RR 1.58 [0.15, 16.71] | 1 study · 77 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Death Pharmacomechanical thrombolysis (Cragg® catheter) vs pulse spray technique | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Surgical thrombectomy compared to different types of endovascular interventions for thrombosed haemodialysis arteriovenous fistulas and grafts
Population: thrombosed haemodialysis arteriovenous fistulas and grafts
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Patency at 30 days Surgical thrombectomy vs different types of endovascular interventions | RR 1.1 [0.73, 1.65] | 1 study · 115 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Failure Surgical thrombectomy vs different types of endovascular interventions | RR 0.66 [0.23, 1.89] | 1 study · 115 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Technical success Surgical thrombectomy vs different types of endovascular interventions | RR 1.15 [0.94, 1.41] | 1 study · 115 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Access dysfunction Surgical thrombectomy vs different types of endovascular interventions | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Successful dialysis Surgical thrombectomy vs different types of endovascular interventions | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Major adverse events Surgical thrombectomy vs different types of endovascular interventions | RR 0.35 [0.01, 8.44] | 1 study · 115 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Minor adverse events Surgical thrombectomy vs different types of endovascular interventions | RR 5.26 [0.26, 107.27] | 1 study · 115 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Death Surgical thrombectomy vs different types of endovascular interventions | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |