Device profile of the Vici venous stent for chronic iliofemoral venous obstruction recanalization: overview of its safety and efficacy

Performance of Open and Closed Cell Laser Cut Nitinol Stents for the Treatment of Chronic Iliofemoral Venous Outflow Obstruction in Patients Treated at a Single Centre

OBJECTIVE

A number of dedicated self expanding nitinol stents have been developed for use in the venous system, with both open cell (OC) and closed cell (CC) designs available. Data comparing these different designs are lacking. The objective of this study was to evaluate outcomes in patients treated with open and closed cells for unilateral chronic iliac vein obstruction.

METHODS

A single centre retrospective cohort study was conducted, including all patients treated with a dedicated nitinol venous stent between 2014 and 2019. Stent patency and details of re-interventions (including lysis, venoplasty, reinforcement, extension, arteriovenous fistula formation) were examined in the first post-operative year. Subgroup analysis described outcomes for patients treated with OC and CC stents ending above the inguinal ligament and those who required extension into the common femoral vein. Cox regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with loss of primary patency.

RESULTS

A total of 207 patients were included (OC 100 patients, CC 107 patients). There was no significant difference between the groups for age (OC 42 years, CC 44 years); gender (OC and CC 67% female); presence of post-thrombotic lesions (OC 71%, CC 73%); stenting across the inguinal ligament (OC 58%, CC 56%), or presence of inflow disease (OC 49%, CC 47%). Primary and cumulative patency at 12 months were similar between groups (primary: OC 63%, CC 65%; cumulative: OC 93%, CC 90%). Patients with a CC stent across the inguinal ligament had a greater risk of needing multiple re-interventions at one year compared with those with an OC stent (odds ratio 2.84, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.16 - 6.9) but overall, the only factor significantly associated with loss of primary patency was inflow vessel disease (hazard ratio 3.39, 95% CI 1.73 - 6.62, p < .001).

CONCLUSION

OC and CC dedicated nitinol venous stents were observed to perform similarly in terms of patency and symptom improvement at one year. Disease of the inflow vessels was the most important factor associated with a loss of stent patency irrespective of stent design.

Contemporary nationwide trends and in-hospital outcomes of adjunctive stenting in patients undergoing catheter-directed thrombolysis for proximal deep venous thrombosis

OBJECTIVE

Outflow venous stenting as an adjunct to catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) is performed to prevent recurrent thrombosis and to reduce the risk of post-thrombotic syndrome. Historical data show that stenting improves outcomes of surgical thrombectomy in patients with iliofemoral deep venous thrombosis (DVT), and recent observational data suggest that stenting improves long-term outcomes of CDT. However, the impact of stenting during CDT on acute safety outcomes is unknown. We sought to investigate the contemporary trends, safety outcomes, and resource utilization of adjunctive stent placement in patients undergoing CDT.

METHODS

Patients with proximal lower extremity and caval DVT were identified within the National Inpatient Sample from January 2005 to December 2013. From this data set, we stratified our patients into three groups: patients who received CDT alone, patients who received CDT plus angioplasty, and patients who received CDT plus angioplasty with stenting. We used an inverse probability treatment weighting algorithm to create three weighted cohorts. Cochran-Armitage test was used to evaluate the trends of stent placement among patients treated with CDT. The primary outcome was a composite end point of all-cause mortality, gastrointestinal bleed, or intracranial hemorrhage.

RESULTS

A total of 138,049 patients were discharged with a principal diagnosis of proximal and caval DVT; 7097 of these patients received CDT (5.1%). From this group, 2854 (40.2%) were treated with CDT alone, 2311 (32.6%) received adjunctive angioplasty alone, and 1932 (27.2%) received adjunctive angioplasty and stent. Adjunctive stenting had a significantly lower rate of primary composite outcome compared with CDT alone (2.7% vs 3.8%; P = .04). Stent placement was associated with a similar length of stay compared with angioplasty and CDT alone groups (6.8 vs 6.9 vs 7.1 days, respectively; P = .94) and higher in-hospital charges ($115,164.01 ± $76,985.31 vs $98,089.82 ± $72,921.94 vs $80,441.63 ± $74,024.98; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

This nationwide study suggests that one in four patients undergoing CDT is treated with adjunctive stent placement in the United States. This observational study showed that adjunctive stenting does not adversely affect the acute safety outcomes of CDT; however, it was associated with increased hospital charges.