Introduction To report our experience of angioplasty with Paclitaxel-coated balloon (PCB) versus common balloon (CB) for the treatment of repeated failing vascular access. Methods Retrospective, single-center analysis consisting of 88 patients treated with percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) in the period from October 2020 through December 2021. Patients were divided into two groups according to the type of treatment as Paclitaxel-coated balloon (n=41) and common balloon (n=47). We analyzed target lesion primary patency and vascular access primary patency for 6 months, and the rate of complications. Results There was no significant difference in the target lesion primary patency which was similar for 6 months between the two groups (PCB group vs. CB group at 1,3,6 months; 95.12% vs. 89.36%(P=0.55), 75.61% vs. 74.47%(P=0.90), 53.66% vs. 63.83%(P=0.33), respectively). Similarly, vascular access primary patency in the PCB group and CB group was 90.24% and 89.36%(P=0.83), respectively, at 1 month, 65.85% and 68.09%(P=0.82), respectively, at 3 months, 39.02% and 53.19%(P=0.18), respectively, at 6 months. There were no major complications after endovascular treatment. Conclusion Compared to common balloon angioplasty, paclitaxel-coated balloon angioplasty have no short-term patency benefit in the treatment of vascular access repeated stenosis.
S. Karger AG, Basel.