Endovascular treatment is a first-line treatment for upper thoracic central vein obstruction (CVO). Few studies using bare venous stents (BVS) in CVO have been conducted.
Purpose
To evaluate the treatment performance of upper thoracic central vein stenosis between BVS and conventional bare stent (CBS) in hemodialysis patients.
Methods
Hemodialysis patients with upper thoracic central vein obstruction who underwent endovascular treatment at the interventional unit of our institution from 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2018 were enrolled in the present study. CBS was used to treat central vein obstruction in 43 patients and BVS in 34 patients. We compared the primary patency rates and complications between the two stent types. P values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.
Results
The patient demographic data between the CBS and BVS groups were similar. The characteristics of the lesions, procedures, and complications were not significantly different between the two groups (P > 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences of primary patency rates at three and six months between the BVS and CBS groups (94.1% vs. 86.0% and 73.5% vs. 58.1%, respectively; P > 0.05). The primary patency rate at 12 months in the BVS group was significantly higher than that in the CBS group (61.8% vs. 32.6%; P = 0.008).
Conclusion
Endovascular treatment of central vein obstruction with BVS provided a higher primary patency rate at 12 months than CBS.
DolmatchBLGurleyJCBaskinKM, et al.
Society of Interventional Radiology Reporting Standards for Thoracic Central Vein Obstruction: Endorsed by the American Society of Diagnostic and Interventional Nephrology (ASDIN), British Society of Interventional Radiology (BSIR), Canadian Interventional Radiology Association (CIRA), Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), Indian Society of Vascular and Interventional Radiology (ISVIR), Vascular Access Society of the Americas (VASA), and Vascular Access Society of Britain and Ireland (VASBI). J Vasc Interv Radiol2018;
29:454–460.e3.
2.
RizviAZKalraMBjarnasonH, et al.
Benign superior vena cava syndrome: stenting is now the first line of treatment. J Vasc Surg2008;
47:372–380.
3.
RiceTWRodriguezRMLightRW.The superior vena cava syndrome: clinical characteristics and evolving etiology. Medicine (Baltimore) 2006;
85:37–42.
4.
MassmannAFriesPObst-GleditschK, et al.
Paclitaxel-coated balloon angioplasty for symptomatic central vein restenosis in patients with hemodialysis fistulas. J Endovasc Ther2015;
22:74–79.
5.
SfyroerasGSAntonopoulosCNMantasG, et al.
A Review of open and endovascular treatment of superior vena cava syndrome of benign aetiology. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg2017;
53:238–254.
6.
AlimiYSGloviczkiPVrtiskaTJ, et al.
Reconstruction of the superior vena cava: benefits of postoperative surveillance and secondary endovascular interventions. J Vasc Surg1998;
27:287–299.
7.
KalraMGloviczkiPAndrewsJC, et al.
Open surgical and endovascular treatment of superior vena cava syndrome caused by nonmalignant disease. J Vasc Surg2003;
38:215–223.
8.
QuinnSFSchumanESDemlowTA, et al.
Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty versus endovascular stent placement in the treatment of venous stenoses in patients undergoing hemodialysis: intermediate results. J Vasc Interv Radiol1995;
6:851–855.
9.
VorwerkDGuentherRWMannH, et al.
Venous stenosis and occlusion in hemodialysis shunts: follow-up results of stent placement in 65 patients. Radiology1995;
195:140–146.
10.
OzkanBGungorDYildirimUM, et al. Endovascular stent placement of juxtaanastomotic stenosis in native arteriovenous fistula after unsuccessful balloon angioplasty. Iran J Radiol2013;
10:133–139.
11.
GrayRJHortonKMDolmatchBL, et al.
Use of Wallstents for hemodialysis access-related venous stenoses and occlusions untreatable with balloon angioplasty. Radiology1995;
195:479–484.
12.
VeselyTMHovsepianDMPilgramTK, et al.
Upper extremity central venous obstruction in hemodialysis patients: treatment with Wallstents. Radiology1997;
204:343–348.
13.
Vascular Access 2006 Work Group.
Clinical practice guidelines for vascular access. Am J Kidney Dis2006;
48 (Suppl. 1):S248–S273.
14.
VogelPMPariseC.SMART stent for salvage of hemodialysis access grafts. J Vasc Interv Radiol2004;
15:1051–1060.
15.
de WolfMAFde GraafRKurstjensRLM, et al.
Short-Term Clinical Experience with a Dedicated Venous Nitinol Stent: Initial Results with the Sinus-Venous Stent. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg2015;
50:518–526.
16.
DabirDFeisstAThomasD, et al.
Physical properties of venous stents: an experimental comparison. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol2018;
41:942–950.
17.
KangCHYangSBLeeWH, et al.
Comparison of open-cell stent and closed-cell stent for treatment of central vein stenosis or occlusion in hemodialysis patients. Iran J Radiol. 2016;
13:e37994.
18.
ArunyJELewisCACardellaJF, et al.
Quality improvement guidelines for percutaneous management of the thrombosed or dysfunctional dialysis access.J Vasc Interv Radiol2003;
14:S247–S253.
19.
TanGMChiKWKYanBPY.Mid-term results of a novel dedicated venous stent for the treatment of chronic thoracic central vein obstruction of benign aetiology. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg2019;
57:417–423.
20.
HaagePVorwerkDPirothW, et al.
Treatment of hemodialysis-related central venous stenosis or occlusion: results of primary Wallstent placement and follow-up in 50 patients. Radiology1999;
212:175–180.
21.
VerstandigAGBloomAISassonT, et al.
Shortening and migration of Wallstents after stenting of central venous stenoses in hemodialysis patients. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol2003;
26:58–64.
22.
BakkenAMProtackCDSaadWE, et al.
Long-term outcomes of primary angioplasty and primary stenting of central venous stenosis in hemodialysis patients. J Vasc Surg2007;
45:776–783.
23.
BornakAWickySRisHB, et al.
Endovascular treatment of stenoses in the superior vena cava syndrome caused by non-tumoral lesions. Eur Radiol2003;
13:950–956.
24.
MickleyVGörichJRilingerN, et al.
Stenting of central venous stenoses in hemodialysis patients: long-term results. Kidney Int1997;
51:277–280.
25.
RajanDKSalujaJS.Use of nitinol stents following recanalization of central venous occlusions in hemodialysis patients. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol2007;
30:662–667.
26.
HaddadMMSimmonsBMcPhailIR, et al.
Comparison of covered versus uncovered stents for benign superior vena cava (SVC) obstruction. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol2018;
41:712–717.
Boutrous ML, Alvarex AC, Okoye OT, et al.
Stent-graft length is associated with decreased patency in treatment of central venous stenosis in hemodialysis patients. Ann Vasc Surg2019;
59:225–230.
29.
DietzUHolzNDauerC, et al.
Shortening the stent length reduces restenosis with bare metal stents: matched pair comparison of short stenting and conventional stenting. Heart2006;
92:80–84.
30.
GrӧschelKSchnaudigelSErnemannU, et al.
Size matters! Stent-length is associated with thrombembolic complications after carotid artery stenting. Stroke2008;
39:e131–132;author reply e133.
HeerwagenSTLӧnnLSchroederTV, et al.
Cephalic arch stenosis in autogenous brachiocephalic hemodialysis fistulas: Results of cutting balloon angioplasty. J Vasc Access2010;
11:41–45.
33.
KitrouPMPapadimatosPSpiliopoulosS, et al.
Paclitaxel-coated balloons for the treatment of symptomatic central venous stenosis in dialysis access: Results from a randomized controlled trial. J Vasc Interv Radiol2017;
28:811–817.
34.
HongsakulKBannangkoonKRookkapanS, et al.
Paclitaxel-coated balloon angioplasty for early restenosis of central veins in hemodialysis patients: A single center initial experience. Korean J Radiol2018;
19:410–416.
