| Literature DB >> 34141741 |
Xiao-Wen Wu1, Xu-Ya Zhao1, Xing Li2, Jun-Xiang Li1, Zong-Yang Liu3, Zhi Huang2, Ling Zhang4, Chong-Yang Sima5, Yu Huang1, Lei Chen1, Shi Zhou6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Conventional recanalization techniques may fail in patients with completely occluded superior vena cava (SVC). AIM: To analyze the effectiveness and complications of sharp recanalization for completely occluded SVC.Entities:
Keywords: Arteriovenous fistula; Arteriovenous graft; Hemodialysis; Superior vena cava occlusion; Vascular patency
Year: 2021 PMID: 34141741 PMCID: PMC8180228 DOI: 10.12998/wjcc.v9.i16.3848
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World J Clin Cases ISSN: 2307-8960 Impact factor: 1.337
Characteristics of the patients
|
|
|
| Age in yr | 59.6 ± 18.9 |
| Male/female | 5/9 |
| Body mass index in kg/m2 | 23.8 ± 1.9 |
| Blood pressure in mmHg | |
| Systolic | 143.2 ± 30.7 |
| Diastolic | 82.1 ± 9.9 |
| Primary nephropathy, | 9 (64.3) |
| Diabetic nephropathy, | 3 (21.4) |
| Hypertensive nephropathy, | 2 (14.3) |
| Time of hemodialysis, | 6.5 (5-10) |
| Previous vascular access, | |
| 1 | 1 (7.1) |
| ≥ 2 | 13 (92.9) |
Demographic and clinical data of each patient
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 | F | 25 | Yes | 30 | Yes | 4 | 10.7 | IV | 10.3 | 12.0 | 12.0 | No | D | Yes | 11.7 |
| 2 | F | 43 | Yes | 12 | Yes | 2 | 9.5 | IV | 7.3 | 10.0 | 10.0 | Yes | - | Yes | 12.5 |
| 3 | F | 65 | Yes | 37 | Yes | 2 | 10.5 | IV | 8.0 | 8.0 | 8.0 | Yes | - | Yes | 10.6 |
| 4 | F | 50 | Yes | 15 | Yes | 3 | 11.7 | IV | 7.0 | 10.0 | 10.0 | No | B | Yes | 13.4 |
| 5 | F | 67 | Yes | 24 | Yes | 1 | 9.8 | IV | 8.0 | 10.0 | 8.0 | Yes | - | Yes | 12.3 |
| 6 | M | 63 | Yes | 36 | Yes | 1 | 10.4 | IV | 10.5 | 12.0 | 10.0 | No | B | Yes | 10.8 |
| 7 | F | 27 | Yes | 36 | Yes | 0 | 8.6 | IV | 8.0 | 8.0 | 8.0 | Yes | - | Yes | 13.9 |
| 8 | F | 48 | No | 84 | Yes | 0 | 9.3 | IV | 8.5 | 12.0 | 12.0 | Yes | - | Yes | 11.4 |
| 9 | F | 83 | Yes | 10 | Yes | 4 | 11.8 | IV | 6.7 | 12.0 | 12.0 | No | D | Yes | 10.7 |
| 10 | F | 60 | Yes | 4 | Yes | 0 | 9.2 | IV | 7.5 | 8.0 | 8.0 | Yes | - | Yes | 9.6 |
| 11 | M | 78 | Yes | 12 | Yes | 1 | 10.6 | IV | 8.5 | 12.0 | 12.0 | Yes | - | Yes | 13.2 |
| 12 | M | 72 | Yes | 5 | Yes | 0 | 9.5 | IV | 7.0 | 8.0 | 8.0 | Yes | - | Yes | 12.1 |
| 13 | M | 67 | Yes | 84 | Yes | 3 | 10.5 | IV | 6.8 | 8.0 | 8.0 | Yes | - | Yes | 11.9 |
| 14 | M | 86 | Yes | 96 | Yes | 0 | 10.3 | IV | 9.0 | 10.0 | 10.0 | Yes | - | Yes | 10.2 |
AVF: Arteriovenous fistula; AVG: Arteriovenous graft; CVC: Cephalic vein cutdown; F: Female; M: Male; SIR: Society of Interventional Radiology.
Figure 1A 25-yr-old female with a sharp recanalization procedure due to superior vena cava obstruction. A: Before sharp recanalization, angiography showed superior vena cava occlusion; B and C: After puncturing the occluded segment (B), the patient complicated with acute pericardial tamponade (C); D: Sharp recanalization succeeded at the second surgery; E: Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty and percutaneous transluminal stenting were performed; F: Venous blood of the superior vena cava.
Figure 2A 25-yr-old female. Postoperative review of sharp recanalization procedure for superior vena cava obstruction. A and B: Coronal (A) and sagittal (B) computed tomography of superior vena cava; C: Digital subtraction angiography of superior vena cava.
Figure 3Superior vena cava first patency rate after sharp recanalization surgery.