PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Yung, Fong Khi
AU  - Zhao, Joseph J
AU  - Tan, Eelin
AU  - Syn, Nicholas
AU  - Sultana, Rehena
AU  - Zhuang, Kun Da
AU  - Chua, Jasmine
AU  - Ming, Er
AU  - Patel, Ankur
AU  - Irani, Farah Gillan
AU  - Hiong, Tay Kiang
AU  - Soo, Tan Bien
AU  - Wei, Too Chow
TI  - Drug-coated balloons for dysfunctional hemodialysis venous access: A patient-level meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
AID  - 10.1101/2020.12.10.20240069
DP  - 2020 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2020.12.10.20240069
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/12/11/2020.12.10.20240069.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/12/11/2020.12.10.20240069.full
AB  - Purpose To perform an individual patient data-level meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing drug-coated balloon angioplasty (DCB) against conventional percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) in the treatment of dysfunctional hemodialysis venous access.Methods A search was conducted from inception till 13th November 2020. Kaplan-Meier curves comparing DCB to PTA by target lesion primary patency (TLPP) and access circuit primary patency (ACPP) were graphically reconstructed to retrieve patient-level data. One-stage meta-analyses with Cox-models with random-effects gramma-frailties were conducted to determine hazard ratios (HRs). Dynamic restricted mean survival times (RMST) were conducted in view of violation of the proportional hazards assumption. Conventional two-stage meta-analyses and network meta-analyses under random-effects Frequentist models were conducted to determine overall and comparative outcomes of paclitaxel concentrations utilised. Where outliers were consistently detected through outlier and influence analyses, sensitivity analyses excluding those studies were conducted.Results Among 10 RCTs (1,207 patients), HRs across all models favoured DCB (one-stage shared-frailty HR=0.62, 95%-CI: 0.53–0.73, P<0.001; two-stage random-effects HR=0.60, 95%-CI: 0.42–0.86, P=0.018, I2=65%) for TLPP. Evidence of time-varying effects (P=0.005) was found. TLPP RMST was +3.47 months (25.0%) longer in DCB-treated patients compared to PTA (P=0.001) at 3-years. TLPP at 6-months, 1-year and 2-years was 75.3% vs 58.0%, 51.1% vs 37.1% and 31.3% vs 26.0% for DCB and PTA respectively. P-Scores within the Frequentist network meta-analysis suggest that higher concentrations of paclitaxel were associated with better TLPP and ACPP. Among 6 RCTs (854 patients), the one-stage model favoured DCB (shared-frailty HR=0.72, 95%-CI: 0.60–0.87, P<0.001) for ACPP. Conversely, the two-stage random-effects model demonstrated no significant difference (HR=0.76, 95%-CI: 0.35–1.67, P=0.414, I2=81%). Sensitivity analysis excluding outliers significantly favoured DCB (HR=0.61, 95%-CI: 0.41–0.91, P=0.027, I2=62%).Conclusion Overall evidence suggests that DCB is favoured over PTA in TLPP and ACPP. The increased efficacy of higher concentrations of paclitaxel may warrant further investigation.Competing Interest StatementJoseph J Zhao is supported by the SingHealth SMSTDA Talent Development Award administered by SingHealth, Singapore and NUS Enterprise Innovation and Entrepreneurship Practicum Award awarded by National University of Singapore, Singapore.Funding StatementNo external funding was received.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:NAAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesThis manuscript makes use of publicly-available data from published studies, therefore no original or additional data is available for sharing.