Table 1.
Patient characteristics. Twenty-five SMART stents each were deployed in AVF and AVG cases. There was no significant difference, other than stent location, between the backgrounds of the patients in the two groups.
| ALL | AVF | AVG | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of patients | 50 | 25 | 25 | |
| Number of stents | 50 | 25 | 25 | |
| Age | 71.6 ± 11.3 | 71.2 ± 11.3 | 72.2 ± 11.6 | n.s. |
| Gender (M/F) | 24/27 | 13/12 | 10/15 | n.s. |
| Primary renal disease | ||||
| DM | 24 | 12 | 12 | n.s. |
| non DM | 26 | 13 | 13 | |
| Hemodialysis history (years) | 7.3 ± 6.1 | 7.8 ± 6.2 | 6.6 ± 5.9 | n.s. |
| PTA history (times) | 4.6 ± 3.9 | 4.5 ± 3.5 | 4.8 ± 4.3 | n.s. |
| Difficult vascular access* | 50 | 25 | 25 | |
| Poor general health** (%) | 35 (70%) | 18 (72%) | 17 (68%) | n.s. |
| Use of antiplatelet agents | 49 | 24 | 25 | n.s. |
| Stent location | ||||
| Upper arm | 22 | 4 | 18 | 0.0002 |
| Lower arm | 28 | 21 | 7 |
*Difficult vascular access; percutaneous endovascular therapy thought to have been the best treatment choice for the identified lesion because it is difficult to develop new vascular accesses in other lesions. **Poor general health; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status grade 3 or 4.