A Randomised Trial of Paclitaxel Coated Balloons for Arteriovenous Fistula Stenosis with Blinded Re-intervention Criteria

Read full text
Authors: Raphaël Coscas, Lamiae Grimaldi, Lucie Mercier, Éric Picard, Ángel Ferrario, Joseph Touma, Alexandros Mallios, Marc Sznajder, Lionelle Nkam, Ziad A. Massy, Isabelle Aichoun, Karim Belattar
+33 more Iannis Ben Abdallah, Yves Castier, Raphaël Coscas, Alessandro Costanzo, Costantino Del Giudice, Nawal Derridj, Elsa Faure, Khalil El Karoui, Mostafa El Hajjam, Ángel Ferrario, Mihaëla Giol, Yann Goueffic, Philippe Goy, Danielle Guez, Lamiae Grimaldi, Rabih Houbballah, Gilles Hufnagel, Madalina Jacota, M Roux, Alexandros Mallios, Ziad A. Massy, Lionelle Nkam, Gaëlle Pellé, Quentin Pellenc, Éric Picard, Quentin Raimbourg, Maxime Raux, Jacques Ropers, Jean Senemaud, Marc Sznadjer, Vania Tacher, Joseph Touma, Luc Turmel
Cited by: 1
References: 19

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this French physician initiated, multicentre, prospective, randomised trial with blinded criteria for re-intervention was to evaluate the efficacy of paclitaxel coated balloons (DCBs) for the treatment of arteriovenous fistula stenosis. METHODS: One hundred and fifty patients with an arteriovenous fistula stenosis were included, and 145 were randomised 1:1 in the Angioplastie au Ballon Imprégné de paclitaxel vs. angioplastie Standard pour le traitement des Sténoses sur fistule artérioveineuse trial; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02753998 (ABISS) between a DCB (Lutonix, BD, Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA) and a placebo balloon. The main outcome was the rate of primary patency loss at 6 months. The primary analysis was performed in the modified intention to treat population. Missing outcome data were handled using a conservative imputation approach. The per-protocol analysis excluded patients who were included by mistake, not treated according to the randomisation arm, lost to follow up, or who missed a visit. RESULTS: In the modified intention to treat analysis, there was no significant difference between the groups regarding primary patency loss at 6 months (31% [22 of 70] in the DCB group vs. 42% [30 of 71] in the placebo group; p = .090; hazard ratio = 0.62 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.36 - 1.07]). Primary patency loss was lower in the DCB than in the placebo group at 3 months (4.2% vs. 22.5%; p = .002; hazard ratio = 0.18 [95% CI 0.05 - 0.60]), but not at 12 months (58.6% vs. 57.7%; p = .57; hazard ratio = 0.88 [95% CI 0.57 - 1.35]). In the per-protocol analysis, the primary patency loss was significantly lower in the DCB group than in the placebo group (26% [16 of 61] in the DCB group vs. 50% [28 of 56] in the placebo group; p = .004). CONCLUSION: In the ABISS trial, the use of a DCB was not superior to a placebo balloon at 6 months in the modified intention to treat analysis.

Fields of Study & Subjects

Central Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis Vascular Malformations Diagnosis and Treatment Vascular Procedures and Complications

Publication details

Journal / source
European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Publication date
1 June 2026
Language
EN