Long-term outcomes following thrombolysis of arteriovenous grafts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Thrombolysis for arteriovenous grafts (AVG) yields high technical success rates, however, long-term outcomes are unclear. We conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study to analyze 5-year patency rates following AVG thrombolysis. METHODS: All patients who underwent AVG thrombolysis between 2005 and 2015 at three academic hospitals were included. Prospectively maintained institutional nephrology and radiology databases were used to record demographic, clinical, and AVG characteristics. The primary outcome was primary patency, defined as AVG access survival without re-intervention including angioplasty ± stent with/without re-thrombolysis. Secondary outcomes were assisted primary patency and cumulative patency, defined as AVG access survival until re-thrombosis requiring re-thrombolysis or abandonment, respectively. Technical success was defined as restoration of flow with <30% residual stenosis. Patients were followed until 2017. Patency rates were assessed using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox proportional hazards were calculated to determine associations between covariates and patency loss. RESULTS: Seventy-four patients underwent AVG thrombolysis during the study period with a median follow-up period of 21.4 (IQR 8.3-42.8) months. The average age was 58.6 years with a high rate of comorbidities, including hypertension (82.4%) and diabetes (54.1%). Thrombolysis technical success was 96%. There were 147 re-interventions in 46 patients, of which 98 were re-thrombolysis (mean re-intervention rate of 1.27/patient/year). Primary patency at 1, 3, and 5 years were 43.2%, 20.2%, and 7.7%. Assisted primary patency at 1, 3, and 5 years were 47.5%, 20.2%, and 7.7%. Cumulative patency at 1, 3, and 5 years were 75.0%, 38.8%, and 22.6%. Cox proportional hazards analysis demonstrated no associations between demographic, clinical, and procedural characteristics and patency rates. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a high technical success rate, thrombolysis for AVG dysfunction is associated with poor long-term patency. Future studies are needed to determine risk factors for re-thrombosis to identify patients who will benefit from AVG thrombolysis in the long-term.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".