Endovascular versus surgical arterio-venous fistula creation for hemodialysis

Reading time approx. 1 minute
This page contains 1 evidence gap
  1. Endovascular versus surgical arterio-venous fistula creation for hemodialysis
Population:
Adult patients with end-stage kidney disease who are candidates for arteriovenous fistula (AVF) operation
Intervention:
Percutaneous endovascular creation of arterio-venous fistula (AVF)
Comparison:
Surgical creation of arterio-venous fistula
Outcomes:
Patient survival, reinterventions, primary patency at 1 year, time to cannulation, technical adequacy for dialysis, functional usability or cannulation success, technical success, vein length available for cannulation, complications, health-related quality of life

What evidence is needed?

More primary research is needed.

What evidence is available?

Reliable systematic reviews that show evidence gaps:

Mihovilovic K, Axelsson TH, Bäckman L, Csernai A, Eliasdottir S, Sjögren P, Svanberg T, Søfteland JM, Jivegård. Efficacy and safety of endovascular versus surgical arterio-venous fistula creation for hemodialysis [Effektivitet och säkerhet för endovaskulärt jämfört med kirurgiskt anlagd arterio-venös fistel för hemodialys]. Göteborg: Västra Götalandsregionen, Sahlgrenska Universitetssjukhuset, HTA-centrum; 2021. Regional activity based HTA 2021:122. More about the review

Reliable, but not updated, systematic reviews that show evidence gaps:

None identified

Registration number:
Published:
Research conducted after publication could potentially change the nature of the evidence.
To top

Evidence gap identifies methods or practices for which no conclusive systematic review of benefits and harms has been published. Gaps in scientific evidence appear on the SBU website to help researchers and granting agencies identify areas that are in need of research or systematic review. An additional objective is to offer healthcare and social service providers a basis for setting priorities.