Digital subtraction venography for assessment of deep venous thrombosis in the arms following pacemaker implantation

Massive arm edema following arteriovenous dialysis shunt creation in a patient with ipsilateral permanent pacemaker

Asymptomatic subclavian vein occlusion following insertion of a permanent pacemaker (PPM) or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is not uncommon. We report a case of a dual-chamber PPM in a patient with an unrecognized left subclavian vein occlusion who developed massive left arm edema following ipsilateral implantation of an arteriovenous (AV) hemodialysis graft. We recommend that patients with pre-existing PPM or ICD leads who are in need of vascular access for hemodialysis should have the AV shunts placed in the contralateral arm. If this is unavoidable, then preoperative subclavian vein screening for patency should be mandatory, even in asymptomatic patients. Sonography is an appropriate initial test in such a situation.

Occlusion of the proximal subclavian vein complicating pacemaker lead implantation

A set of images in which a pacemaker lead replacement procedure was complicated by occlusion of the proximal subclavian vein is presented. However, this was not detected on venography performed before the procedure. Physicians should be aware of a more proximal occlusion of the subclavian vein while replacing pacemaker leads, even in cases with seemingly normal venography.

[Deep venous thrombosis of the upper limbs. Apropos of 49 cases]

PURPOSE

Upper-extremity thrombosis appears to be more frequent today, comprising about 2% of all deep venous limb thrombosis. Its severity depends on the type of possible complications, i.e., pulmonary embolism and post-thrombotic sequelae. In this retrospective series, we investigated both the predisposing factors and the evolution of upper-extremity deep venous thrombosis.

METHODS

Forty-nine consecutive patients (24 men and 25 women, mean age 50.2 years) with upper extremity deep venous thrombosis documented by color Doppler ultrasonography (n = 47) or phlebography (n = 2) were included in the study.

RESULTS

Clinical manifestations were mainly pain (81.6%) and edema (93.9%). Mean time between the onset of clinical signs and diagnosis was 7.2 days. Thrombosis involved humeral (26.5%), axillary (46.9%), subclavian (73.5%) and jugular (24.5%) veins. Causative factors were malignancies (32.7%), venous catheters (22.4%), deep venous thrombosis related to effort or thoracic outlet syndrome (22.5%) and thrombophilic states (8.2%). During the 6-month follow-up, six patients developed symptomatic pulmonary embolism (12.2%); one recurrence (2.2%) and 19 post-thrombotic sequelae such as residual edema (36.7%) were also observed. Initial therapy included heparin administration, principally subcutaneous low molecular weight heparins (n = 36/49).

CONCLUSION

This series highlights the fact that upper-extremity deep venous thrombosis is mainly secondary to either malignancies or catheterization. Moreover, it confirms that color Doppler ultrasonography may be useful in the diagnosis of the disease and also underlines the high frequency of severe complications, i.e., pulmonary embolism and post-thrombotic sequelae. Finally, this study also demonstrates that low molecular weight heparins should be considered as the initial treatment of choice.

Venous complications after insertion of a transvenous pacemaker

We reviewed the incidence, clinical features, current diagnostic evaluations, and treatments of venous complications that can occur after implantation of a transvenous pacemaker. Of the approximately 80 published articles on the potential venous complications after implantation of a permanent transvenous pacemaker, we selected 63 that addressed the clinical features, diagnosis, and treatment of pacemaker lead-induced venous thrombosis, which occurs in approximately 30 to 45% of patients early or late after implantation of a transvenous pacemaker. Most patients with chronic deep venous thrombosis remain asymptomatic because of the development of an adequate venous collateral circulation. Clinical features of pacemaker lead-induced deep venous thrombosis, although rare, are easily recognized. They should be sought routinely during follow-up of all patients with transvenous pacemaker leads because venous obstruction can interfere with intravenously administered therapy, monitoring of central venous pressure, and revision of a pacemaker lead. Acute deep venous thrombosis is likely to be symptomatic. Early recognition and treatment of acute deep venous thrombosis may help to decrease the potential morbidity and mortality. The definitive diagnosis of pacemaker lead-induced venous thrombosis necessitates contrast-enhanced or digital subtraction venography. Management includes anticoagulation, thrombolytic therapy, surgical intervention, and, recently, percutaneous transluminal balloon venoplasty and depends on the duration, extent, and site of venous occlusion as well as the accompanying symptoms.