Blog
About

0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Lesion Type Analysis of Hemodialysis Patients Who Underwent Endovascular Management for Symptomatic Central Venous Disease

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Purpose

          Central venous lesions (CVLs) can adversely affect hemodialysis access maturation and maintenance, which in turn worsen patient morbidity and access circuit patency. In this study, we assessed several clinical variables, patient characteristics, and clinical consequences of symptomatic central vein stenosis and obstruction in patients who underwent renal replacement therapy in the form of hemodialysis.

          Patients and Methods

          The medical records of all hemodialysis patients with clinically symptomatic CVLs who underwent digital subtraction angiography treatment at King Abdullah University Hospital between January 2017 and December 2019 were retrieved. Patient characteristics and the clinical and anatomical features of CVLs were analyzed retrospectively. Pearson’s chi-square tests of association were used to identify and assess relationships between patient characteristics and CVLs.

          Results

          The study cohort comprised 66 patients with end-stage renal disease who developed symptomatic central vein stenosis. Of the 66 patients, 56.1% were men, and their mean age was approximately 52 years. Most (62.1%) of the patients were determined to have a history of central catheter insertion into the jugular vein. Hypertension was the most common comorbidity (78.8%, p<0.001), followed by type 2 diabetes mellitus (47.0 %, p<0.01). The incidence of stenosis was found to be significantly higher in the brachiocephalic vein than in other central veins (43.9%, p<0.001). A repeated central catheter insertion in a patient was predictive of central venous occlusion ( p<0.05). Stenotic lesions were found to be associated with a significantly higher success rate than occlusive lesions (91.2%, p<0.01).

          Conclusion

          Multiple central venous catheters (CVCs) are found to be associated with occlusive CVLs and unfavorable recanalization outcomes. Multiple CVC should be avoided by creating a permanent vascular access in a timely fashion for patients with chronic kidney disease and by avoiding the ipsilateral insertion of CVC and AVF.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 24

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Vascular access use in Europe and the United States: results from the DOPPS.

          A direct broad-based comparison of vascular access use and survival in Europe (EUR) and the United States (US) has not been performed previously. Case series reports suggest that vascular access practices differ substantially in the US and EUR. We report on a representative study (DOPPS) which has used the same data collection protocol for> 6400 hemodialysis (HD) patients to compare vascular access use at 145 US dialysis units and 101 units in five EUR countries (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom). Logistic analysis evaluated factors associated with native arteriovenous fistula (AVF) versus graft use or permanent access versus catheter use for prevalent and incident HD patients. Times to failure for AVF and graft were analyzed using Cox proportional hazards regression. AVF was used by 80% of EUR and 24% of US prevalent patients, and was significantly associated with younger age, male gender, lower body mass index, non-diabetic status, lack of peripheral vascular disease, and no angina. After adjusting for these factors, AVF versus graft use was still much higher in EUR than US (AOR=21, P 30 days prior to ESRD compared with 74% in the US (P < 0.0001); pre-ESRD care was associated with increased odds of AVF versus graft use (AOR=1.9, P=0.01). New HD patients had a 1.8-fold greater odds (P=0.002) of starting HD with a permanent access if a facility's typical time from referral to access placement was < or =2 weeks. AVF use when compared to grafts was substantially lower (AOR=0.61, P=0.04) when surgery trainees assisted or performed access placements. When used as a patient's first access, AVF survival was superior to grafts regarding time to first failure (RR=0.53, P=0.0002), and AVF survival was longer in EUR compared with the US (RR=0.49, P=0.0005). AVF and grafts each displayed better survival if used when initiating HD compared with being used after patients began dialysis with a catheter. Large differences in vascular access use exist between EUR and the US, even after adjustment for patient characteristics. The results strongly suggest that a facility's preferences and approaches to vascular access practice are major determinants of vascular access use.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Central vein stenosis: a common problem in patients on hemodialysis.

            Central vein stenosis (CVS) has been associated with subclavian (SCV) catheter insertions. The prevalence of CVS in the current era with minimal use of SCV catheters is unknown. Furthermore, the prevalence of CVS in patients with access problems has not been previously described to our knowledge. We evaluated 235 prevalent patients on hemodialysis (HD), and, of these, 133 underwent venography for access related concerns over a 14 month period. Of these 133 patients, 55 (41%) had evidence of significant CVS on venogram. Patients with CVS had a longer duration on HD (43 +/- 12 months vs. 34 +/- 15 months, p = 0.018) and a history of a previous HD catheter insertion (52/55 patients vs. 59/78 patients, p = 0.0039). There were only 18 patients with a subclavian catheter insertion. In those with any history of previous HD catheter insertion, multivariate analysis demonstrated that number of catheters remains a significant factor (OR 2.69, p = 0.0004) even after excluding those subclavian insertions. This study demonstrates that CVS occurs in almost half of the patients with access problems undergoing venography. We confirm the important contribution of central vein cannulation to CVS and show that, despite minimizing subclavian catheter insertion, CVS remains a relatively common occurrence. Thus further studies should attempt to determine the true incidence of this problem and ultimately address the optimal treatment strategies.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Central vein stenosis: a nephrologist's perspective.

              Central vein stenosis is commonly associated with placement of central venous catheters and devices. Central vein stenosis can jeopardize the future of arteriovenous fistula and arteriovenous graft in the ipsilateral extremity. Occurrence of central vein stenosis in association with indwelling intravascular devices including short-term, small-diameter catheters such as peripherally inserted central catheters, long-term hemodialysis catheters, as well as pacemaker wires, has been recognized for over two decades. Placement of multiple catheters, longer duration, location in subclavian vein, and placement on the left-hand side of neck seem to predispose to the development of central vein stenosis. Endothelial injury with subsequent changes in the vessel wall results in development of microthrombi, smooth muscle proliferation, and central vein stenosis. Central vein stenosis is often asymptomatic in nondialysis patients, but can result in edema of ipsilateral extremity and breast when challenged by increased flow from an arteriovenous fistula or arteriovenous graft. Bilateral central vein stenosis or superior vena cava stenosis can produce a clinical picture of superior vena cava syndrome, associated with engorgement of face and neck. Endovascular interventions are the mainstay of management of central vein stenosis. Percutaneous angioplasty and stent placement for elastic and recurring lesions can restore the functionality of the vascular access, at least temporarily. Frequent or multiple interventions are usually required. In recalcitrant cases, surgical bypass of the obstruction is an option. In resistant cases with severe symptoms, occlusion of the functioning vascular access will usually provide relief of symptoms. Further study of mechanisms of development of central vein stenosis and search for a targeted therapy is likely to lead to better ways of managing central vein stenosis. Prevention of central vein stenosis is the key to avoid access failure and other complications from central vein stenosis and relies upon avoidance of central vein stenosis placement and timely placement of arteriovenous fistula in prospective dialysis patient.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Vasc Health Risk Manag
                Vasc Health Risk Manag
                vhrm
                vhriskman
                Vascular Health and Risk Management
                Dove
                1176-6344
                1178-2048
                09 October 2020
                2020
                : 16
                : 419-427
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of General & Vascular Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Jordan University of Science and Technology , Irbid 22110, Jordan
                [2 ]Department of Anatomy, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, United Arab Emirates University , Al Ain 17666, United Arab Emirates
                [3 ]Faculty of Medicine, Jordan University of Science and Technology , Irbid 22110, Jordan
                [4 ]Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Jordan University of Science and Technology , Irbid 22110, Jordan
                [5 ]Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, The Hashemite University , Zarqa 13133, Jordan
                [6 ]Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Jordan University of Science and Technology , Irbid 22110, Jordan
                [7 ]Department of General & Cardiovascular Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Jordan University of Science and Technology , Irbid 22110, Jordan
                [8 ]Department of Vascular Surgery, King Hussein Medical Center , Amman 11733, Jordan
                [9 ]Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London , London SW7 2BU, UK
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Qusai Aljarrah Department of General & Vascular Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Jordan University of Science and Technology , Irbid22110, JordanTel +962 775593131 Email qmaljarrah@just.edu.jo
                Mohammed Allouh Department of Anatomy, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, United Arab Emirates University , Al Ain, United Arab EmiratesTel +971 37 137 551 Email m_allouh@uaeu.ac.ae
                Article
                273450
                10.2147/VHRM.S273450
                7553251
                © 2020 Aljarrah et al.

                This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms ( https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php).

                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 12, References: 27, Pages: 9
                Categories
                Original Research

                Comments

                Comment on this article