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

      Central Venous Stenosis after Hemodialysis: Case Reports and Relationships to Catheters and Cardiac Implantable Devices

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      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

          The appropriate vascular access for hemodialysis in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) is undefined. We describe two cases of end-stage renal disease patients with CIED and tunneled central venous catheter (CVC) who developed venous cava stenosis: (1) a 70-year-old man with sinus node disease and pacemaker in 2013, CVC, and a Brescia-Cimino forearm fistula in 2015; (2) a 75-year-old woman with previous ventricular arrhythmia with implanted defibrillator in 2014 and CVC in 2016. In either case, after about 1 year from CVC insertion, patients developed superior vena cava (SVC) syndrome due to stenosis diagnosed by axial computerized tomography. In case 1, the patient was not treated by angioplasty of SVC and removed CVC with partial resolving of symptoms. In case 2, a percutaneous transluminal angioplasty with placement of a new CVC was required. To analyze these reports in the context of available literature, we systematically reviewed studies that have analyzed the presence of central venous stenosis associated with the simultaneous presence of CIED and CVC. Five studies were found; two indicated an increased incidence of central venous stenosis, while three did not find any association. While more studies are definitely needed, we suggest that these patients may benefit from epicardial cardiac devices and the insertion of devices directly into the ventriculus. If the new devices are unavailable or contraindicated, peritoneal dialysis or intensive conservative treatment in older patients may be proposed as alternative options.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 21

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

          Efficacy and safety of a very-low-protein diet when postponing dialysis in the elderly: a prospective randomized multicenter controlled study.

          A supplemented very-low-protein diet (sVLPD) seems to be safe when postponing dialysis therapy. Prospective multicenter randomized controlled study designed to assess the noninferiority of diet versus dialysis in 1-year mortality assessed by using intention-to-treat and per-protocol analysis. Italian uremic patients without diabetes older than 70 years with glomerular filtration rate of 5 to 7 mL/min (0.08 to 0.12 mL/s). Randomization to an sVLPD (diet group) or dialysis. The sVLPD is a vegan diet (35 kcal; proteins, 0.3 g/kg body weight daily) supplemented with keto-analogues, amino acids, and vitamins. Patients following an sVLPD started dialysis therapy in the case of malnutrition, intractable fluid overload, hyperkalemia, or appearance of uremic symptoms. Mortality, hospitalization, and metabolic markers. 56 patients were randomly assigned to each group, median follow-up was 26.5 months (interquartile range, 40), and patients in the diet group spent a median of 10.7 months (interquartile range, 11) following an sVLPD. Forty patients in the diet group started dialysis treatment because of either fluid overload or hyperkalemia. There were 31 deaths (55%) in the dialysis group and 28 deaths (50%) in the diet group. One-year observed survival rates at intention to treat were 83.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 74.5 to 94.0) in the dialysis group versus 87.3% (95% CI, 78.9 to 96.5) in the diet group (log-rank test for noninferiority, P < 0.001; for superiority, P = 0.6): the difference in survival was -3.6% (95% CI, -17 to +10; P = 0.002). The hazard ratio for hospitalization was 1.50 for the dialysis group (95% CI, 1.11 to 2.01; P < 0.01). The unblinded nature of the study, exclusion of patients with diabetes, and incomplete enrollment. An sVLPD was effective and safe when postponing dialysis treatment in elderly patients without diabetes.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The superior vena cava syndrome: clinical characteristics and evolving etiology.

            Malignancy is the most common cause of the superior vena cava (SVC) syndrome. With the increasing use of intravascular devices, the incidence of the SVC syndrome arising from benign etiologies is increasing. We reviewed the etiology and outcome of 78 patients with SVC syndrome over 5 years. Malignancy was the etiology in 60% of the cases, and bronchogenic carcinoma was the most common malignancy. Small cell and non-small cell lung cancer accounted for 17 (22%) and 19 (24%) cases, respectively, but a higher percentage of patients with small-cell lung cancer developed the syndrome (6% vs 1%). Lymphoma and germ cell tumors were other significant malignant causes (8% and 3% of cases, respectively). An intravascular device was the most common etiology in benign cases (22 of 31 cases; 71%), with fibrosing mediastinitis the second most common benign etiology (6 cases). The most frequent signs and symptoms were face or neck swelling (82%), upper extremity swelling (68%), dyspnea (66%), cough (50%), and dilated chest vein collaterals (38%). Dyspnea at rest, cough, and chest pain were more frequent in the patients with malignancy. Procedures performed for diagnostic or treatment purposes did not increase morbidity or mortality.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Predictors of venous obstruction following pacemaker or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation: a contrast venographic study on 100 patients admitted for generator change, lead revision, or device upgrade.

              Venous obstruction following transvenous device implantation rarely cause immediate clinical problems. When lead revision or device upgrade is indicated, venous obstruction become a significant challenge. The aim of this study was to determine the predictors of venous obstruction after transvenous device implantation, and to asess likely effects of antiplatelet/anticoagulant drugs in preventing venous thrombosis. Between March 2005 and July 2006, contrast venography was performed in 100 patients who were candidates for generator change, lead revision, or device upgrade. Vessel patency was graded as either completely obstructed, partially obstructed (>70%), or patent. The incidence of venous obstruction was 26%, with 9% of patients having total obstruction and 17% of patients exhibiting partial obstruction. No statistically significant differences between obstructed and non-obstructed patients were seen for age, sex, indication for device implantation, atrial fibrillation, cardiothoracic ratio, insulation material, operative technique, device type, and manufacturer (all Ps > 0.05). In a univariate analysis, multiple leads (P = 0.033), and presence of dilated cardiomyopathy (P = 0.036) were associated with higher risk of venous obstruction, whereas anticoagulant/antiplatelet therapy (P = 0.047) significantly reduced incidence of venous obstruction. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that only number of the leads (P = 0.039, OR: 2.22, and 95% CI: 1.03-4.76) and antiplatelet/anticoagulant therapy (P = 0.044, OR: 2.79, and 95% CI: 0.98-7.96) were predictors of venous obstruction. Total or partial obstruction of the access veins occurs relatively frequently after pacemaker or ICD implantation. Multiple pacing or ICD leads are associated with an increased risk of venous obstruction, whereas antiplatelet/anticoagulant therapy appears to have a preventive effect on development of access vein thrombosis.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                CRM
                Cardiorenal Med
                10.1159/issn.1664-5502
                Cardiorenal Medicine
                S. Karger AG
                1664-3828
                1664-5502
                2019
                March 2019
                27 February 2019
                : 9
                : 3
                : 135-144
                Affiliations
                aNephrology Division, University of Naples – “Luigi Vanvitelli” – Medical School, Naples, Italy
                bCardiac Surgery Division, University of Naples – Federico II – Medical School, Naples, Italy
                cNephrology Division, Santa Chiara Hospital, Trento, Italy
                dSurgery Division, Villa dei Fiori, Mugnano di Napoli, Italy
                eNephrology Division, University of Catanzaro – “Magna Graecia”, Catanzaro, Italy
                Author notes
                *Carlo Garofalo, MD, Nephrology Division, University of Campania, “Luigi Vanvitelli”, Via Maria Longo 50, IT–80138 Naples (Italy), E-Mail carlo.garofalo@unicampania.it
                Article
                496065 Cardiorenal Med 2019;9:135–144
                10.1159/000496065
                30814478
                © 2019 S. Karger AG, Basel

                Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug. Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

                Page count
                Figures: 5, Tables: 1, Pages: 10
                Categories
                Review

                Comments

                Comment on this article