Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Objectives:

To investigate the risk factors and biomechanical mechanisms of in-stent restenosis (ISR) in central venous occlusive disease (CVOD).

Patients and methods:

This retrospective study consecutively included 77 maintenance hemodialysis (MHD) patients with CVOD who received the first percutaneous transluminal angioplasty with stenting (PTS) due to symptomatic CVOD in a tertiary hospital. The mean age was 59.7 ± 14.0 years, and 51.9% of patients were male. The clinical characteristics, occurrence of ISR and patency rates were recorded. Finite element method was applied to assess the biomechanical properties of stents.

Results:

Among 77 patients with a mean CVS score of 8.0 ± 2.8, 20.8%, 62.3%, and 16.9% of patients had the main vein of CVOD in the subclavian vein, brachiocephalic vein, and superior vena cava, respectively. A total of 72 (93.5%) patients received successful PTS treatment, for which the stents implanted were mainly Fluency covered stent (48.6%) and SMART bare stent (31.9%). During 15 (10–24)-months of follow-up, ISR occurred in 36.1% of the 72 patients. The primary and assisted primary patency rates at 12, 18, and 24 months were 78%, 56%, 42% and 95%, 90%, 87%, respectively. A prolonged dialysis vintage was an independent risk factor for ISR, yet the stent type or the main vein location was not correlated with ISR. Among three laser-engraving stents, the SMART stent was the best in terms of flexibility, stress, and strain on stents but worst in stress or strain on vessels. The Luminexx stent was the best in radial force and worst in stress or strain on stents. The Vici stent was the best in stress and strain on vessels and worst in radial force and flexibility.

Conclusions:

An unsatisfactory comprehensive biomechanical performance from configurations rooted in existing stents may account for the high incidence of ISR in CVOD.

Keywords

Central venous occlusive disease hemodialysis endovascular stent in-stent restenosis biomechanical assessment

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Lok

Huber

Lee

, et al. KDOQI clinical practice guideline for vascular access: 2019 update. Am J Kidney Dis 2020; 75(4 Suppl 2): S1–S164.

Anaya-Ayala

Smolock

Colvard

, et al. Efficacy of covered stent placement for central venous occlusive disease in hemodialysis patients. J Vasc Surg 2011; 54(3): 754–759.

Moore

Jr. Berry

. Fluid and solid mechanical implications of vascular stenting. Ann Biomed Eng 2002; 30(4): 498–508.

Schiele

. Current understanding of coronary in-stent restenosis. Pathophysiology, clinical presentation, diagnostic work-up, and management. Z Kardiol 2005; 94(11): 772–790.

Alraies

Darmoch

Tummala

, et al. Diagnosis and management challenges of in-stent restenosis in coronary arteries. World J Cardiol 2017; 9(8): 640–651.

Quaretti

Galli

Moramarco

, et al. Stent grafts provided superior primary patency for central venous stenosis treatment in comparison with angioplasty and bare metal stent: a retrospective single center study on 70 hemodialysis patients. Vasc Endovascular Surg 2016; 50(4): 221–230.

Modabber

Kundu

. Central venous disease in hemodialysis patients: an update. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2013; 36(4): 898–903.

Bakken

Protack

Saad

, et al. Long-term outcomes of primary angioplasty and primary stenting of central venous stenosis in hemodialysis patients. J Vasc Surg 2007; 45(4): 776–783.

Kovalik

Newman

Suhocki

, et al. Correction of central venous stenoses: use of angioplasty and vascular Wallstents. Kidney Int 1994; 45(4): 1177–1181.

10.

Aytekin

Boyvat

Yağmurdur

, et al. Endovascular stent placement in the treatment of upper extremity central venous obstruction in hemodialysis patients. Eur J Radiol 2004; 49(1): 81–85.

11.

Shamimi-Noori

Clark

TWI

. Venous stents: current status and future directions. Tech Vasc Interv Radiol 2018; 21(2): 113–116.

12.

Wang

Jin

Huang

, et al. Endovascular stent-induced alterations in host artery mechanical environments and their roles in stent restenosis and late thrombosis. Regen Biomater 2018; 5(3): 177–187.

13.

Arokiaraj

De Beule

De Santis

. A novel sax-stent method in treatment of ascending aorta and aortic arch aneurysms evaluated by finite element simulations. J Med Vasc 2017; 42(1): 39–45.

14.

Caimi

Sturla

Pluchinotta

, et al. Prediction of stenting related adverse events through patient-specific finite element modelling. J Biomech 2018; 79: 135–146.

15.

Martin

Boyle

. Computational structural modelling of coronary stent deployment: a review. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin 2011; 14(4): 331–348.

16.

Agarwal

. Central vein stenosis. Am J Kidney Dis 2013; 61(6): 1001–1015.

17.

Schmidli

Widmer

Basile

, et al. Editor’s choice - Vascular access: 2018 clinical practice guidelines of the European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS). Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2018; 55(6): 757–818.

18.

Xiong

Cui

. Angled, long-segment central venous occlusion in a hemodialysis patient recanalized by a novel “two-step” strategy based on percutaneous superior vena cava puncture. Ther Apher Dial 2021; 25(5): 712–713.

19.

Zhai

Zhao

Feng

, et al. Placement of tunneled cuffed vascular catheter through superior vena cava puncture. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord 2017; 5(4): 547-552.

20.

Lee

Mokrzycki

Moist

, et al; North American Vascular Access Consortium. Standardized definitions for hemodialysis vascular access. Semin Dial 2011; 24(5): 515–524.

21.

Shenoy

Allon

Beathard

, et al. Clinical trial end points for hemodialysis vascular access: background, rationale, and definitions. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2018; 13(3): 490–494.

22.

Fan

Cheng

, et al. Puncture anatomy of subclavian vein. Chin J Pract Med 2006; 11(5): 1221–1222.

23.

Breault

Doenz

Jouannic

, et al. Percutaneous endovascular management of chronic superior vena cava syndrome of benign causes: long-term follow-up. Eur Radiol 2017; 27(1): 97–104.

24.

Ganeshan

Hon

Warakaulle

, et al. Superior vena caval stenting for SVC obstruction: current status. Eur J Radiol 2009; 71(2): 343–349.

25.

Shin

Park

Jeon

, et al. Use of covered stents in the central vein: a feasibility study in a canine model. J Endovasc Ther 2011; 18(6): 802–810.

26.

Vogel

Parise

. SMART stent for salvage of hemodialysis access grafts. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2004; 15(10): 1051–1060.

27.

Razavi

Marston

Black

, et al. The initial report on 1-year outcomes of the feasibility study of the VENITI VICI VENOUS STENT in symptomatic iliofemoral venous obstruction. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord 2018; 6(2): 192–200.

28.

Abreo

Sequeira

. Role of stents in hemodialysis vascular access. J Vasc Access 2018; 19(4): 341–345.

29.

Kavan

Kudlicka

Malik

, et al. Treatment of failing arterio-venous dialysis graft by angioplasty, stent, and stent graft: two-years analysis of patency rates and cost-effectiveness. Exp Ther Med 2019; 18(5): 4144–4150.

30.

Tan

Chi

KWK

Yan

BPY

. 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 Surg 2019; 57(3): 417–423.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

5.25 MB

0.15 MB

0.17 MB

0.06 MB

0.11 MB

Risk factors for in-stent restenosis in maintenance hemodialysis patients with central venous occlusive disease and biomechanical assessment of stents