Abstract

There is a consensus in the literature that regional anesthesia (RA) improves local hemodynamic parameters in comparison to local anesthesia (LA) during arteriovenous fistula (AVF) surgical construction. However, the effects of both techniques on fistula patency and failure rates are still controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis is to synthesize evidence from published randomized trials and observational studies regarding the safety and efficacy of RA versus LA in AVF surgical construction. A computer literature search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central retrieved six randomized trials (462 patients) and one retrospective study (408 patients). Pooling data using RevMan software (version 5.3) showed that RA was superior to LA in terms of primary fistula patency rate (RR = 1.22, 95% CI [1.08, 1.37], p = 0.0010); however, both types were comparable in terms of primary fistula failure rate (RR = 0.81, 95% CI [0.47, 1.40], p = 0.46). In comparison to LA, RA was associated with improved hemodynamic parameters including fistula blood flow (MD = 25.08, 95% CI [19.40, 30.76], p<0.00001), brachial artery diameter (SMD = 2.63, 95% CI [2.17, 3.08], p<0.00001), and outflow venous diameter (SMD = 0.93, 95% CI [0.30, 1.75], p = 0.004). Postoperative complications were comparable between both groups (OR = 0.23, 95% CI [0.05, 0.97], p = 0.05). In conclusion, RA was associated with higher primary patency rates of AVF and improved local blood flow in comparison to LA; however, both procedures were comparable in terms of primary failure rates and postoperative complications. Larger well-designed trials with longer follow-up periods should compare both techniques in terms of long-term patency rates and safety outcomes.