In the present study, stenosis of the cephalic vein within 5 cm from the arteriovenous anastomosis was the most common cause of immaturity (84.7%, 50/59). Juxta-anastomotic stenosis of aAVFs has been shown to be the most common vascular lesion that causes immature aAVFs (
6). Stenosis in the “venous swing point” (the region from the arteriovenous anastomosis to the point of the cephalic vein, located 5 cm distal to the anastomosis) is considered an acquired lesion associated with the surgical technique, as this point is the site of surgical creation and mobilization of the artery and vein (
15). Other vascular lesions, such as lesions in the central veins, other venous outflow tract obstructions related to previous puncture and catheter insertion, small size of the cephalic vein, and large size of accessory veins are also well-known causes of aAVF immaturity (
16).
Previous studies have identified older age, female gender, and the presence of diabetes, hypertension, and an upper-arm fistula as predictors of aAVF maturation failure. Moreover, several studies have shown that preoperative arterial and venous diameters of > 2 mm and 2.5 mm, respectively, predict maturation of the aAVF (
16-
18). Recently, vein diameter and volume flow measured with Doppler US before and after the surgery have been suggested to be very useful for predicting fistula maturation (
19). According to Robbin et al. (
7), venous diameter of > 4 mm and volume flow of > 500 mL/minute within four weeks after the surgery were the main determinants of successful aAVF maturation. Our attempts to evaluate immature aAVFs using the above diagnostic criteria were difficult because of the lack of clearly defined reference values for volume flow that would allow researchers to distinguish between mature and immature aAVFs. Furthermore, volume flow has been quantitatively studied only for matured fistulas. Therefore, appropriate cut-off values for size and volume flow need to be established for immature aAVFs (
20).
Han et al. (
8) demonstrated that patients aged > 65 years and lesion factors, such as stenosis ≥ 90% and residual stenosis ≥ 20%, were independently associated with reduced primary or secondary patency rate. However, Liang et al. (
21) found no significant differences among three types of lesions, stenosis, obstruction, and thrombosis, on primary and secondary patency rates after sPTA. Furthermore, they found no significant difference in patency rate between groups with and without significant residual stenosis after sPTA. In agreement with the latter results, we did not find statistically significant associations between successful aAVF maturation after sPTA and various patient, vessel and lesion characteristics. Physicians should bear in mind, however, that cut-off values for the size, depth, and volume flow of the cephalic vein, associated with immature aAVFs in the Asian population, may be lower than those in the Western population, and therefore further studies are needed to verify this result.
In our study, ASR ≥ 0.7 and the absence of significant residual stenosis were significant independent factors predicting successful fistula maturation after sPTA (P < 0.001). In particular, fistulas with ASR of ≥ 0.7 on follow-up Doppler US performed within two weeks after sPTA tended to have a greater rate of fistula maturation than fistulas with ASR of < 0.7, yet this tendency was not statistically significant (P > 0.05).
Early elastic recoil, one of the drawbacks of angioplasty, may have contributed to the above results. In this study, we performed follow-up US examinations within two weeks after sPTA to assess the diameter of the fistula. Furthermore, ASR was calculated based on the acquired maximal diameter of the venous limb of the fistula on follow-up US two weeks after sPTA and the diameter of the dilated segment of the venous limb of the fistula immediately after sPTA. This quantitative evaluation of the dilated venous limb of the fistula, during short-term follow-up Doppler US after sPTA, may be very useful for predicting successful aAVF maturation.
The appropriate size of balloon catheters for sPTA has been a matter of debate. Although same-sized balloon catheters or catheters up to 20% larger than the normal vessel diameter are often used in conventional PTA, this selection principle does not fully apply to sPTA for several reasons. First, immature fistulas in most patients from our series had very small diameters (≤ 3 mm) (90%, 53/59), which may have been smaller than the normal vessel diameter in the healthy population. Second, a larger balloon catheter increases the risk of damage to the immature vein, such as by causing a perforation or dissection. Third, immaturity typically results in a very small diameter of the distal venous limb of the fistula, and this increases the risk of vascular injury during puncture or haemostasis. Therefore, in most cases, we used same-sized balloon catheters or one approximately 0.5 mm smaller than the diameter of the adjacent normal venous limb of the fistula during sPTA. As a result, no major complications were observed immediately after balloon inflation except for one case of pseudoaneurysm, in which sPTA was performed for an RC-AVF with a same-sized balloon catheter (3 mm). Even though our study had a shorter follow-up period and a smaller sample size compared to some other studies, the superior clinical success rate of this study indicates the usefulness of this approach for balloon catheter size selection for sPTA.
The rate of fistula maturation after sPTA obtained in the current study was higher than that in previous reports (
6,
8). There may be several reasons for this difference. First, access via arterial puncture reduced the risk of damage to cephalic veins, which could preclude maturation. Second, the proportion of cases with severe stenosis (> 90%) was lower than that in other studies. Third, the incidence of meaningful accessory veins was lower than that of previous reports.
This study had several limitations that need to be addressed. First, its retrospective design may have resulted in selection or recall bias. Second, this was a single-center study, the number of patients was relatively small, and the follow-up period was relatively short, which may affect the generalizability of the results. Third, there may have been inter- or intra-observer variation in performing the Doppler US in each examination, in spite of verification of the ultrasonographic results by two board-certified interventional radiologists with > 15 years of experience in vascular interventions. Fourth, the number of failed cases was very low in this series, which could be a major weakness of this study because the failure cases could be important in predicting the causes of aAVF maturation.
In conclusion, an ASR of ≥ 0.7 and the absence of significant residual stenosis at the two-week follow-up Doppler US after sPTA can be used to predict successful aAVF maturation. Immediate additional sPTA was helpful for successful aAVF maturation in cases with significant residual stenosis and ASR < 0.7.