Alice Andrawos1, Hani Saeed2, Christopher Delaney3. 1. Department of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Flinders Medical Centre, Bedford Park, Australia; Department of Medical Imaging, Flinders Medical Centre, Bedford Park, Australia; Department of Medical Imaging, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Australia; University of Edinburgh and Royal College of Surgeons, Edinburgh, Australia. Electronic address: aliceandrawos@gmail.com. 2. Department of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Flinders Medical Centre, Bedford Park, Australia. 3. Department of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Flinders Medical Centre, Bedford Park, Australia; College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Bedford, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This review examines the evidence regarding treatment of central vein obstruction (CVO) in the setting of ipsilateral hemodialysis access. The aim of this work is to identify whether long-term venous patency after central vein stenting is superior compared with balloon venoplasty. To date, there are no evidence-based guidelines to direct the management of CVO in the setting of ipsilateral hemodialysis access. METHODS: An extensive systematic database search was performed using Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Databases to identify all articles published from January 2000 to November 2019 comparing the management of CVO with venoplasty and/or stenting in the setting of ipsilateral hemodialysis access fistulae/grafts. RESULTS: There were 655 patients with 456 stenoses and 208 occlusions who were treated; 288 underwent venoplasty and 345 underwent stenting. Twenty-two patients failed intervention owing to an inability to traverse the occlusion. The most affected vein was the brachiocephalic vein. A superior primary patency (PP) is noted in those treated with stenting compared with venoplasty in the first 2 years. Overall, both treatments are suboptimal demonstrating a 12-month PP rate of less than 60%. Assisted PP and secondary patency rates were similar for both venoplasty and stenting with a 12-month secondary patency rate of 77.8% to 91.6% for venoplasty and 89.6% to 98.4% for stenting. Periprocedural and long-term complications were rare for both interventions, occurring in 2% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Although both treatments demonstrated poor patency rates, greater PP is noted for stenting in the first 2 years. Coupled with low complication rates, this finding highlights a potential benefit of stenting as a first-line treatment for CVO. Allowing for the overall poor quality of current studies, even this short-term improvement in PP may benefit patients undergoing hemodialysis. Further research with randomised control trials as well as assessment of adjuvant techniques such as drug-coated stents and balloons, anticoagulant therapy, and the role of intravascular ultrasound use is required.
OBJECTIVE: This review examines the evidence regarding treatment of central vein obstruction (CVO) in the setting of ipsilateral hemodialysis access. The aim of this work is to identify whether long-term venous patency after central vein stenting is superior compared with balloon venoplasty. To date, there are no evidence-based guidelines to direct the management of CVO in the setting of ipsilateral hemodialysis access. METHODS: An extensive systematic database search was performed using Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Databases to identify all articles published from January 2000 to November 2019 comparing the management of CVO with venoplasty and/or stenting in the setting of ipsilateral hemodialysis access fistulae/grafts. RESULTS: There were 655 patients with 456 stenoses and 208 occlusions who were treated; 288 underwent venoplasty and 345 underwent stenting. Twenty-two patients failed intervention owing to an inability to traverse the occlusion. The most affected vein was the brachiocephalic vein. A superior primary patency (PP) is noted in those treated with stenting compared with venoplasty in the first 2 years. Overall, both treatments are suboptimal demonstrating a 12-month PP rate of less than 60%. Assisted PP and secondary patency rates were similar for both venoplasty and stenting with a 12-month secondary patency rate of 77.8% to 91.6% for venoplasty and 89.6% to 98.4% for stenting. Periprocedural and long-term complications were rare for both interventions, occurring in 2% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Although both treatments demonstrated poor patency rates, greater PP is noted for stenting in the first 2 years. Coupled with low complication rates, this finding highlights a potential benefit of stenting as a first-line treatment for CVO. Allowing for the overall poor quality of current studies, even this short-term improvement in PP may benefit patients undergoing hemodialysis. Further research with randomised control trials as well as assessment of adjuvant techniques such as drug-coated stents and balloons, anticoagulant therapy, and the role of intravascular ultrasound use is required.