Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Not Yet Recruiting

NCT Number: NCT06868901

Six-month Response Rate According to Two Surgical Techniques (Rotational Atherectomy Versus Angioplasty) to Treat Stenosis of Vascular Accesses in Hemodialysis.

A well-functioning hemodialysis vascular access is a decisive factor in the survival of hemodialysis patients, who have a high mortality rate. 85% of these hemodialysis patients, are treated via an arteriovenous fistula (AVF). However, the primary patency of AVFs at 1 year is 60%, mainly due to neointimal hyperplasia developing in the drainage vein, which leads to stenosis and, if left untreated, thrombosis of the AVF. Indeed, forty percent of hemodialysis patients require re-intervention on their vascular access within the year, due to stenosis on their AVF.

Transluminal angioplasty (TLA) is currently used as first-line treatment for these stenoses but TLA itself causes vascular damage, with early recurrence of the stenosis in 50% of cases at 6 months, and necessitating repeated interventions.

In recent years several endovascular techniques have been developed to limit the risk of re-stenosis, none of which have produced significantly better results than simple TLA. Eliminating intimal hyperplasia using a minimally invasive endovascular technique, rather than crushing it with simple angioplasty, would improve restenosis-free survival in these patients.

Today, endovascular rotational atherectomy techniques are available to improve the patency of angioplasty in the treatment of complex arterial lesions of the coronary arteries and lower limbs. The atherotome is a guide-mounted catheter with a small burr at its distal end, which resects the atheromatous plaque whereas angioplasty simply crushes it. Atherectomy is followed by drug-eluting balloon (DEB) angioplasty with paclitaxel release to limit restenosis through its anti-inflammatory and anti-proliferative activity. A few cases of rotational atherectomy for the treatment of calcified stenoses in saphenous vein coronary bypasses have been reported in the literature, with encouraging results. If AVF re-stenosis should occur, the intimal hyperplasia can be removed endovascularly, thereby limiting the risk of short-term iterative stenosis.

The aim of this study was to compare the 6-month re-stenosis rate with this technique (atherectomy + drug-eluting balloon) versus standard angioplasty + drug-eluting balloon for the treatment of restenosis of hemodialysis vascular accesses.

Not Yet Recruiting

Trial opening soon.

Get Notified

Key information

Age range

18 year and older

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Not applicable

About this study

A well-functioning hemodialysis vascular access is a decisive factor in the survival of hemodialysis patients, who have a high mortality rate. 85% of these hemodialysis patients, are treated via an arteriovenous fistula (AVF), which is currently the access offering the best results in terms of patency and infectious risk. However, the primary patency of AVFs at 1 year is 60%, mainly due to the development of neointimal hyperplasia in the drainage vein, which leads to stenosis and, if left untreated, thrombosis of the AVF. Forty percent of hemodialysis patients on AVF will therefore have at least one intervention on their vascular access within the year, due to stenosis on their AVF.

Transluminal angioplasty (TLA) is currently used as first-line treatment for these stenoses. However, TLA itself causes vascular damage, with migration and myofibroblast proliferation responsible for abnormal vascular remodeling, leading to early recurrence of the stenosis in 50% of cases at 6 months, limiting the long-term functionality of these angioplasties and necessitating repeated interventions on these patients. For all these reasons, developing techniques to limit the risk of re-stenosis of hemodialysis AVFs is a public health issue.

In recent years several endovascular techniques have been developed to limit the risk of re-stenosis: paclitaxel-coated "active" balloon angioplasty, bare or covered stenting, none of which have produced significantly better results than simple TLA. Eliminating intimal hyperplasia using a minimally invasive endovascular technique, rather than crushing it with simple angioplasty, would improve restenosis-free survival in these patients, without increasing the burden of management.

Today, endovascular rotational atherectomy techniques are available to improve the patency of angioplasty in the treatment of complex arterial lesions of the coronary arteries and lower limbs. The atherotome is a guide-mounted catheter with a small burr at its distal end, which resects the atheromatous plaque where angioplasty simply crushes it. Atherectomy is followed by drug-eluting balloon angioplasty with paclitaxel release to limit restenosis through its anti-inflammatory and anti-proliferative activity. A few cases of rotational atherectomy for the treatment of calcified stenoses in saphenous vein coronary bypasses have been reported in the literature, with encouraging results and the absence of complications, notably perforation. If AVF re-stenosis should occur, the intimal hyperplasia can be removed endovascularly, thereby limiting the risk of short-term iterative stenosis.

The aim of this study was to compare the 6-month re-stenosis rate with this technique (atherectomy + drug-eluting balloon) versus standard angioplasty + drug-eluting balloon for the treatment of restenosis of hemodialysis vascular accesses.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

  • Hemodialysis patient on arteriovenous fistula (AVF) with re-stenosis defined on echodoppler by a combination of >50% venous lumen reduction with a systolic peak ratio >2 associated with either : i) an internal residual diameter of < 2 mm, or ii) a flow reduction > 25% or a flow rate < 500 ml/min.
  • Patient with at least one history of angioplasty on his/her AVF at the same site.
  • Patient available for 6-month follow-up.
  • Patient with free and informed consent and signed consent form.
  • Patient affiliated with or benefiting from a health insurance plan.

Exclusion criteria

  • Patient with an intraoperative technical impossibility.
  • Patient with a septic complication.
  • Patient participating in another interventional trial.
  • Patient in an exclusion period determined by another study.
  • Patient under court protection, guardianship or curatorship.
  • Patient unable to give consent.
  • Patient for whom it is impossible to give informed information.

Treatment and study plan

Standard angioplasty + drug-eluting balloon technique

Procedure

Treatment of restenosis of hemodialysis vascular access via the standard angioplasty + drug-eluting balloon technique

Atherectomy + drug-eluting balloon

Procedure

Treatment of restenosis of hemodialysis vascular access via the atherectomy + drug-eluting balloon technique

Primary outcomes

  1. Re-stenosis rate at 6 months in the control group

    Time frame: At 6 months postoperative

    YES/NO Significant restenosis is defined on echodoppler by a combination of > 50% venous lumen reduction with a systolic peak ratio > 2 associated with: i) either an internal residual diameter < 2 mm, ii) or a flow reduction > 25% or flow < 500 ml/min.

  2. Re-stenosis rate at 6 months in the experimental group

    Time frame: At 6 months postoperative

    YES/NO Significant restenosis is defined on echodoppler by a combination of > 50% venous lumen reduction with a systolic peak ratio > 2 associated with: i) either an internal residual diameter < 2 mm, ii) or a flow reduction > 25% or flow < 500 ml/min.

Secondary outcomes

  1. Time to re-stenosis in the control group

    Time frame: Up to 6 months postoperative

    Time (days) from surgery to onset of restenosis as defined above.

  2. Time to re-stenosis in the experimental group

    Time frame: Up to 6 months postoperative

    Time (days) from surgery to onset of restenosis as defined above.

  3. Rate of complications in the control group

    Time frame: Up to 6 months' follow-up.

    Collection of complications related to surgical technique: perforation (assessed by the operator intraoperatively: extravasation of contrast medium at fistulographic control), false aneurysm (assessed at follow-up echodoppler).

  4. Rate of complications in the experimental group

    Time frame: Up to 6 months' follow-up.

    Collection of complications related to surgical technique: perforation (assessed by the operator intraoperatively: extravasation of contrast medium at fistulographic control), false aneurysm (assessed at follow-up echodoppler).

  5. Intermediate re-stenosis at 1 month in the control group

    Time frame: At 1 month postoperative

    Intermediate patency assessed by significant restenosis as defined above

  6. Intermediate re-stenosis at 1 month in the experimental group

    Time frame: At 1 month postoperative

    Intermediate patency assessed by significant restenosis as defined above

  7. Intermediate re-stenosis at 3 months in the control group

    Time frame: At 3 months postoperative

    Intermediate patency assessed by significant restenosis as defined above

  8. Intermediate re-stenosis at 3 months in the experimental group

    Time frame: At 3 months postoperative

    Intermediate patency assessed by significant restenosis as defined above

  9. Systolic velocity in the control group

    Time frame: At 3 months postoperative

    Systolic velocity (ml/s) assessed by echodoppler

  10. Systolic velocity in the experimental group

    Time frame: At 3 months postoperative

    Systolic velocity (ml/s) assessed by echodoppler

  11. Systolic velocity in the control group

    Time frame: At 6 months postoperative

    Systolic velocity (ml/s) assessed by echodoppler

  12. Systolic velocity in the experimental group

    Time frame: At 6 months postoperative

    Systolic velocity (ml/s) assessed by echodoppler

  13. Venous lumen at 1 month in the control group

    Time frame: At 1 month postoperative

    Measurement of venous lumen as a percentage on echodoppler

  14. Venous lumen at 1 month in the experimental group

    Time frame: At 1 month postoperative

    Measurement of venous lumen as a percentage on echodoppler

  15. Venous lumen at 3 months in the control group

    Time frame: At 3 months postoperative

    Measurement of venous lumen as a percentage on echodoppler

  16. Venous lumen at 3 months in the experimental group

    Time frame: At 3 months postoperative

    Measurement of venous lumen as a percentage on echodoppler

  17. Venous lumen at 6 months in the control group

    Time frame: At 6 months postoperative

    Measurement of venous lumen as a percentage on echodoppler

  18. Venous lumen at 6 months in the experimental group

    Time frame: At 6 months postoperative

    Measurement of venous lumen as a percentage on echodoppler

  19. Re-intervention rate for thrombosis in the control group

    Time frame: Up to 6 months postoperative

    Occurrence of re-intervention for thrombosis: yes/no.

  20. Re-intervention rate for thrombosis in the experimental group

    Time frame: Up to 6 months postoperative

    Occurrence of re-intervention for thrombosis: yes/no.

Study contacts

Contact information is provided by the study sponsor or research team.

Anissa MEGZARI

CONTACT

[email protected]

0466684236

Elsa FAURE, Dr.

CONTACT

[email protected]

+334.66.68.77.06

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nīmes

Other

Registry information

Official study title

Evaluation of the 6-month Response Rate According to Two Surgical Techniques (Rotational Atherectomy vs. Angioplasty) to Treat Stenosis of Vascular Accesses in Hemodialysis. A Single-center, Randomized, Single-blind, Superiority-controlled Pilot Study.

Acronym: ARSAV

Important dates

Study start
2025
Primary completion
2027
Study completion
2027
First posted
Mar 11, 2025
Registry last updated
Mar 11, 2025

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.