Influence of differences in vasodilatory capacity in shunt stenosis on treatment results and inspection standards

Influence of differences in vasodilatory capacity in shunt stenosis on treatment results and inspection standards - Vasodilator capacity of shunt stenosis

Status

Active, not recruiting

Phases

Unknown

Study type

Interventional

Source

JPRN

Registry ID

JPRN-UMIN000040139

Enrollment

100

Registered

2020-04-15

Start date

2018-12-01

Completion date

Unknown

Last updated

2026-06-29

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Chronic kidney disease

Interventions

VAIVT Flow volume, Resistance Index for Ultra sound

Eligibility

Sex/Gender

All

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: Ninety-six patients on maintenance dialysis who underwent VAIVT under echo with a stenotic cross-sectional area of less than 3.14 mm2 (2.0*2.0 mm in the case of a normal circle) were included in the study.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: Unsuccessful VAIVT treatment

Design outcomes

Primary

Measure	Time frame
Ninety-six patients on maintenance dialysis who underwent VAIVT under echo with a stenotic cross-sectional area of less than 3.14 mm2 (2.0*2.0 mm in the case of a normal circle) were included in the study. First, subjects were classified into two groups based on the degree of vasodilatation by hemorrhage: poorly vascularized and well vascularized groups. There have been no previous reports on the degree of vasodilatation capacity in shunt stenosis as good or bad. Statistical analysis The study items were patient background (gender, VA type, VA construction site, age, dialysis history, VA history, and history of diabetes mellitus (DM)), non-hypertensive stenosis cross-sectional area before VAIVT, stenosis cross-sectional area during hemostasis, FV and RI before VAIVT, FV and RI after VAIVT, maximum diastolic pressure during VAIVT, stenosis dilatation rate before and after VAIVT, non-hypertensive stenosis cross-sectional area after VAIVT, number of VAIVTs in the past 3 years, and presence or absence of VA events during HD. The data from each of the two groups were compared statistically. The occurrence of a VA event was counted as a single case of poor bleeding, elevated venous pressure, or recirculation.	—

Measure

Time frame

Ninety-six patients on maintenance dialysis who underwent VAIVT under echo with a stenotic cross-sectional area of less than 3.14 mm2 (2.0*2.0 mm in the case of a normal circle) were included in the study. First, subjects were classified into two groups based on the degree of vasodilatation by hemorrhage: poorly vascularized and well vascularized groups. There have been no previous reports on the degree of vasodilatation capacity in shunt stenosis as good or bad. Statistical analysis The study items were patient background (gender, VA type, VA construction site, age, dialysis history, VA history, and history of diabetes mellitus (DM)), non-hypertensive stenosis cross-sectional area before VAIVT, stenosis cross-sectional area during hemostasis, FV and RI before VAIVT, FV and RI after VAIVT, maximum diastolic pressure during VAIVT, stenosis dilatation rate before and after VAIVT, non-hypertensive stenosis cross-sectional area after VAIVT, number of VAIVTs in the past 3 years, and presence or absence of VA events during HD. The data from each of the two groups were compared statistically. The occurrence of a VA event was counted as a single case of poor bleeding, elevated venous pressure, or recirculation.

—

Countries

Japan

Contacts

Public ContactYasumasa Hitomi

Tojinkai Hospital Department of Clinical Engineering

hitomi.y@tojinkai.jp0756221991

Outcome results

None listed

Source: JPRN (via WHO ICTRP) · Data processed: Jul 3, 2026