Cardiovascular implantable electronic devices in hemodialysis patients: prevalence and implications for arteriovenous hemodialysis access interventions

Subcutaneous cardioverter defibrillator implanted intermuscularly in patients with end-stage renal disease requiring hemodialysis: 5-year follow-up

BACKGROUND

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the long-term safety and effectiveness of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) when implanted intermuscularly in patients with end-stage renal disease and hemodialysis.

METHODS

This study is a retrospective analysis of 21 consecutive patients implanted with S-ICDs at three experienced centers in Germany with comorbid renal insufficiency requiring hemodialysis, as well as being at risk of sudden cardiac death. The S-ICD was placed intermuscularly in all patients. Follow-ups (FUs) were performed every 6 months.

RESULTS

The mean ± standard deviation FU duration was 60.0 ± 11.4 months, with a range of 39 to 78 months. There were no deaths due to arrhythmia, or device-associated infections and complications. Four patients (19.1%) died during FU due to respiratory insufficiency during dialysis, systolic heart failure, septic infection of the urogenital tract, and colorectal cancer, respectively. There were six non-device-related hospitalizations with a duration of 12.7 ± 5.1 days and a hospitalization rate of 4.1 per 100 patient years.

CONCLUSIONS

In the long-term FU of this small population of seriously compromised hemodialysis patients at risk of sudden cardiac death, the intermuscularly implanted S-ICD system was safe and effective. No arrhythmic complications, device-associated infections, or complications compromised survival. These data are encouraging and support testing in a larger group of similarly compromised patients.

Do Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators Prevent Sudden Cardiac Death in End-Stage Renal Disease Patients on Dialysis?

Chronic kidney disease patients appear to be predisposed to heart rhythm disorders, including atrial fibrillation/atrial flutter, ventricular arrhythmias, and supraventricular tachycardias, which increase the risk of sudden cardiac death. The pathophysiological factors underlying arrhythmia and sudden cardiac death in patients with end-stage renal disease are unique and include timing and frequency of dialysis and dialysate composition, vulnerable myocardium, and acute proarrhythmic factors triggering asystole. The high incidence of sudden cardiac deaths suggests that this population could benefit from implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy. The introduction of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators significantly decreased the rate of all-cause mortality; however, the benefits of this therapy among patients with chronic kidney disease remain controversial since the studies provide conflicting results. Electrolyte imbalances in haemodialysis patients may result in ineffective shock therapy or the appearance of non-shockable underlying arrhythmic sudden cardiac death. Moreover, the implantation of such devices is associated with a risk of infections and central venous stenosis. Therefore, in the population of patients with heart failure and severe renal impairment, periprocedural risk and life expectancy must be considered when deciding on potential device implantation. Harmonised management of rhythm disorders and renal disease can potentially minimise risks and improve patients' outcomes and prognosis.

The Micra Transcatheter Pacing System: past, present and the future

Leadless permanent pacemakers represent an important innovation in cardiac device developments. Although transvenous permanent pacemakers have become indispensable in managing bradyarrhythmia and saving numerous lives, the use of transvenous systems comes with notable risks tied to intravascular leads and subcutaneous pockets. This drawback has spurred the creation of leadless cardiac pacemakers. Within this analysis, we compile existing clinical literature and proceed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the Micra Transcatheter Pacing System. We also delve into the protocols for addressing a malfunctioning or end-of-life Micra as well as device extraction. Lastly, we explore prospects in this domain, such as the emergence of entirely leadless cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator devices.

Device-related infection and mortality in patients with chronic kidney disease receiving cardiac implantable electronic devices: a propensity score-matched cohort study

BACKGROUND

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) was reported to be a risk factor of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection. The application of bundled skin antiseptic preparation before CIED implantation decreased the risk of CIED infection, even in patients undergoing complex procedures. However, the effect of bundled skin antiseptic preparation to prevent CIED infection in patients with CKD was not tested.

METHODS

Between July 2012 and December 2019, 1668 patients receiving CIEDs comprised this retrospective cohort study and were categorized into two groups by the diagnosis of CKD: group with CKD (n = 750, 45%) and group without CKD (n = 918, 55%). The primary outcome was clinical CIED infection, including major and minor infection, and the secondary outcomes were cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality. Propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to reduce selection bias between the study groups.

RESULTS

During a 4-year follow-up period, 30 patients (1.8%) had a CIED infection. After PSM, the incidence of CIED infection was similar between the patients with CKD and without CKD (1.0% vs. 1.8%). The incidences of cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality were higher in patients with CKD compared to patients without CKD (6.5% vs. 3.0%, P = 0.009; 22.8% vs. 11.8%, P < 0.001, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The incidence of clinical CIED infection in patients with CKD was as lower as in patients without CKD after applying the bundled skin antiseptic preparation strategy. The cumulative incidences of cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality were significantly higher in the matched CIED recipients with CKD compared to the matched cohort without CKD.

How does a CIED presence influence chances and safety of haemodialysis access? Conclusions from over 3000 thoracic venografies

Patients requiring temporal or permanent catheter or arterio-venous fistula (AVF) for haemodialysis may be in challenging situation, if they are cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIED) carriers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The authors analysed preoperative venogrphies of 3100 patients referred for transvenous lead extraction for a possible chance of safe haemodialysis catheter (HC) implantation or proper AVF function.

RESULTS

A chance of safe catheter implantation parallel to existing leads reaches 68.8% ipsilaterally to CIED. Contraindications for implantation have been found in less than 2% of cases contralaterally. Ipsilaterally proper AVF function chance has been found in 50.3% of the cases and almost 98% contralaterally. A bilateral chest electrodes location require the special attention. Abandoned lead, lead burden, bilateral leads, additional lead implantation or abandonment, and implant duration may have a significant influence on HC insertion or proper function of arteriovenous fistula.

CONCLUSION

(1) Obstruction of prominent thoracic veins is a frequent finding in CIED carriers and may impede or disable implantation haemodialysis accesses. (2) Implantation of temporary or permanent HC may be questionable ipsilaterally to the CIED in 31.2% and contralaterally in 2.0% of patients. Proper function of AVF is uncertain in 49.7% ipsilaterally and 2.1% contralaterally to CIED. (3) Pacing history and leads dwell time influence chances of success haemodialysis access even on the free-from CIED chest side. (4) Proper venous flow evaluation seems to be valuable in CIED carriers before an attempt of haemodialysis access formation, even contralaterally.

Severity and Extent of Lead-Related Venous Obstruction in More Than 3000 Patients Undergoing Transvenous Lead Extraction

Background

Lead-related venous stenosis/obstruction (LRVSO) may be a major challenge in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) when device upgrade, insertion of central lines, or creation of an arteriovenous fistula for hemodialysis is indicated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the extent and severity of LRVSO.

Methods

We performed a retrospective analysis of 3002 venograms from patients awaiting transvenous lead extraction (TLE) to assess the occurrence, severity, and extent of LRVSO.

Results

Mild LRVSO occurred in 19.9%, moderate in 20.7%, severe in 19.9% and total venous occlusion in 22.5% of the patients. Moderate/severe stenosis or total occlusion of the subclavian and brachiocephalic veins was found in 38.2% and 22.5% of the patients, respectively. LRSVO was not detected in 16.9% of the patients. Moderate and severe superior vena cava (SVC) obstruction and total SVC occlusion were rare (0.4%, 0.3%, and 0.3%, respectively). Lead insertion on the left side of the chest contributed to an increased risk of LRVSO compared to right-sided implantation. Major thoracic veins on the opposite side may be narrowed in varying degrees.

Conclusion

A total of 60% of the patients with pacemaker or high-voltage leads have an advanced form of LRVSO. Any attempt to insert new pacing leads, central lines, venous ports, or catheters for hemodialysis, or to create dialysis fistula on the same side as the existing lead should be preceded by venography. Furthermore, venography may provide useful information, if it is planned to implant the lead or the catheter on the opposite side of the chest.

Risk Factors for Lead-Related Venous Obstruction: A Study of 2909 Candidates for Lead Extraction

Background: our knowledge of lead-related venous stenosis/occlusion (LRVSO) remains limited and there is still controversy regarding the risk factors for LRVSO. Venography is mandatory before transvenous lead extraction (TLE). Methods: we performed a retrospective analysis of venograms in 2909 patients (39.43% females, average age 66.90 years) who underwent TLE between 2008 and 2021 at high-volume centers. Results: the severity of LRVSO was likely to be dependent on the number of leads in the system (OR = 1.345; p = 0.003), the number of abandoned leads (OR = 1.965; p < 0.001), the presence of coronary sinus leads (OR = 1.184; p = 0.056), male gender (OR = 1.349; p = 0.003) and patient age at first CIED implantation (OR = 1.008; p = 0.021). The presence of permanent atrial fibrillation (OR = 0.666; p < 0.001) and right ventricular diastolic diameter (OR = 0.978; p = 0.006) showed an inverse correlation with the degree of LRVSO. The combined three-model multivariate analysis provided better prediction of LRSVO using the above-mentioned factors than the CHA2DS2-VASc score. Conclusions: the severity of LRVSO is probably dependent on the mechanical impact of the implanted/abandoned leads on the vein wall, therefore the study has demonstrated the central role of system-/procedure-related risk factors. The thrombotic mechanism may be less important, especially long after implantation, and for this reason the combined prediction model for LRVSO in this study was more effective than the CHA2DS2-VASc score.

The cardiovascular-dialysis nexus: the transition to dialysis is a treacherous time for the heart

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients require dialysis to manage the progressive complications of uraemia. Yet, many physicians and patients do not recognize that dialysis initiation, although often necessary, subjects patients to substantial risk for cardiovascular (CV) death. While most recognize CV mortality risk approximately doubles with CKD the new data presented here show that this risk spikes to >20 times higher than the US population average at the initiation of chronic renal replacement therapy, and this elevated CV risk continues through the first 4 months of dialysis. Moreover, this peak reflects how dialysis itself changes the pathophysiology of CV disease and transforms its presentation, progression, and prognosis. This article reviews how dialysis initiation modifies the interpretation of circulating biomarkers, alters the accuracy of CV imaging, and worsens prognosis. We advocate a multidisciplinary approach and outline the issues practitioners should consider to optimize CV care for this unique and vulnerable population during a perilous passage.

Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices in Hemodialysis and Chronic Kidney Disease Patients-An Experience-Based Narrative Review

Cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are a standard therapy utilized for different cardiac conditions. They are implanted in a growing number of patients, including those with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). Cardiovascular diseases, including heart failure and malignant arrhythmia, remain the leading cause of mortality among CKD patients, especially in ESKD. CIED implantation procedures are considered minor surgery, typically with transvenous leads inserted via upper central veins, followed by an impulse generator introduced subcutaneously. A decision regarding optimal hemodialysis (HD) modality and the choice of permanent vascular access (VA) could be particularly challenging in CIED recipients. The potential consequences of arteriovenous access on the CIED side are related to (1) venous hypertension from lead-related central vein stenosis and (2) the risk of systemic infection. Therefore, when creating permanent vascular access, the clinical scenario may be complicated by the CIED presence on one side and the lack of suitable vessels for arteriovenous fistula on the contralateral arm. These factors suggest the need for an individualized approach according to different clinical situations: (1) CIED in a CKD patient; (2) CIED in a patient on hemodialysis CIED; and (3) VA in a patient with CIED. This complex clinical conundrum creates the necessity for close cooperation between cardiologists and nephrologists.

Cardiovascular implantable electronic devices and native arteriovenous fistula in hemodialysis patients: novel perspectives

The benefits from cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIED) implantation in hemodialysis (HD) patients are still far to be thoroughly defined, especially on primary prevention. In addition, CIED placement is not a risk-free procedure, because it could be followed by a not negligible burden of complications that could compromise the health and the vascular access of HD patients. In fact, the arteriovenous fistula (AVF) dysfunction following CIED implantation is usually due to a hemodynamically significant alteration of blood flow. This condition could lead to a potential decrease of dialysis efficacy and a raised risk of thrombosis of both the central vein and the efferent vein of the AVF.The pathological pathway that leads to AVF dysfunction after CIED implantation may involve the irritating actions of the CIED and their leads to the vascular wall in HD patients that are more prone to show previous vascular diseases.The aim of this review is to focus the physiopathology of the CIED-induced AVF dysfunction, the current treatment strategies and the novel perspectives that could be taken into consideration and offered to the HD population to preserve both their AVF and their quality of life.

Pulsatile tinnitus as a presenting symptom of central venous stenosis secondary to an ipsilateral upper arm arteriovenous PTFE graft

A 51-year-old man presented with a swollen left arm and unilateral pulsatile tinnitus 2 weeks after a left upper arm polytetrafluoroethylene graft was created for haemodialysis access. A fistulogram of the left upper arm showed a central venous stenosis and significant retrograde flow up the left internal jugular vein. Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty was attempted unsuccessfully and fistula ligation was subsequently performed. This led to immediate resolution of the tinnitus. The venous stenosis was likely secondary to a cardiac resynchronisation therapy defibrillator, which had been removed 1 year previously. Central venous stenosis is a common but often asymptomatic complication of a cardiac device, with the exception of patients with upper extremity arteriovenous fistulas, who frequently develop symptomatic venous hypertension. This generally presents with ipsilateral arm swelling and/or high venous pressures during dialysis. To our knowledge, this is the first report of pulsatile tinnitus arising in this context.

Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators in Patients with ESRD: Complications, Management, and Literature Review

Background:

Cardiovascular diseases are the leading cause of death among dialysis pa-tients, accounting for about 40% of all their mortalities. Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is culpable for 37.5% of all deaths among patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) should be considered in dialysis patients for the primary or secondary preven-tion of SCD. Recent studies on the implementation of ICD/cardiac resynchronization therapy do not exclude patients with ESRD; however, individualized decisions should be made in this group of pa-tients. A thorough evaluation of the benefits of ICD implementation in patients with ESRD requires several large-scale mortality studies to compare and follow up patients with ESRD with and without ICDs. In the present study, we sought to determine and clarify the complications associated with ICD implementation and management thereof in patients suffering from ESRD.

Methods:

To assess the complications allied to the implementation of ICDs and their management in patients with ESRD, we reviewed available related articles in the literature.

Results and Conclusions:

ICD implementation in dialysis patients has several complications, which has limited its usage. Based on our literature review, the complications of ICD implementation can be categorized as follows: (1) Related to implantation procedures, hematoma, and pneumothorax; (2) Re-lated to the device/lead such as lead fracture and lead dislodgment; (3) Infection; and (4) Central vein thrombosis. Hence, the management of the complications of ICDs in this specific group of patients is of vital importance.

Evidence-Based Strategies and Recommendations for Preservation of Central Venous Access in Children

Children with chronic illness often require prolonged or repeated venous access. They remain at high risk for venous catheter-related complications (high-risk patients), which largely derive from elective decisions during catheter insertion and continuing care. These complications result in progressive loss of the venous capital (patent and compliant venous pathways) necessary for delivery of life-preserving therapies. A nonstandardized, episodic, isolated approach to venous care in these high-need, high-cost patients is too often the norm, imposing a disproportionate burden on affected persons and escalating costs. This state-of-the-art review identifies known failure points in the current systems of venous care, details the elements of an individualized plan of care, and emphasizes a patient-centered, multidisciplinary, collaborative, and evidence-based approach to care in these vulnerable populations. These guidelines are intended to enable every practitioner in every practice to deliver better care and better outcomes to these patients through awareness of critical issues, anticipatory attention to meaningful components of care, and appropriate consultation or referral when necessary.

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

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.

Patency rates of arteriovenous fistulas created before versus after hemodialysis initiation

In an incident hemodialysis (HD) population, we aimed to investigate whether arteriovenous fistula (AVF) creation before HD initiation was associated with improved AVF patency compared with AVF creation from a central venous catheter (CVC), and also to compare patient survival between these patients. Between January 2011 and December 2013, 524 incident HD patients with identified first predialysis vascular access with an AVF (pre-HD group, n = 191) or an AVF from a CVC (on-HD group, n = 333) were included and analyzed retrospectively. The study outcome was defined as AVF patency and all-cause mortality (time to death). On Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, primary and secondary AVF patency rates did not differ significantly between the two groups (P = 0.812 and P = 0.586, respectively), although the overall survival rate was significantly higher in the pre-HD group compared with the on-HD group (P = 0.013). On multivariate analysis, well-known patient factors were associated with decreased primary (older age and diabetes mellitus [DM]) and secondary (DM and peripheral arterial occlusive disease) AVF patency, whereas use of a CVC as the initial predialysis access (hazard ratios, 1.84; 95% confidence intervals, 1.20-2.75; P = 0.005) was significantly associated with worse survival in addition to well-known patient factors (older age, diabetes mellitus, and peripheral arterial occlusive disease). Worse survival in the on-HD group was likely confounded by selection bias because of the retrospective nature of our study. Therefore, the observed lower mortality associated with AVF creation before HD initiation is not fully attributable to CVC use, but rather, affected by other patient-level prognostic factors. There were no CVC-related complications in the pre-HD group, whereas 10.2% of CVC-related complications were noted in the on-HD group. In conclusion, among incident HD patients, compared with patients who underwent creation of an AVF from a CVC, initial AVF creation showed similar primary and secondary AVF patency rates, but lower mortality risk. We also observed that an initial CVC use was an independent risk factor associated with worse survival. A fistula-first strategy might be the best option for incident HD patients who are good candidates for AVF creation.

Rationale and design of the randomized prospective ATLAS study: Avoid Transvenous Leads in Appropriate Subjects

BACKGROUND

The defibrillator lead is the weakest part of the transvenous (TV) implantable cardioverter defibrillation (ICD) system and a frequent cause of morbidity. Lead dislodgement, cardiac perforation, insertion-related trauma including pneumothorax and vascular injury, are common early complications of TV-ICD implantation. Venous occlusion, tricuspid valve dysfunction, lead fracture and lead insulation failure are additional, later complications. The introduction of a totally sub-cutaneous ICD (S-ICD) may reduce these lead-related issues, patient morbidity, hospitalizations and costs. However, such benefits compared to the TV-ICD have not been demonstrated in a randomized trial.

DESIGN

ATLAS (Avoid Transvenous Leads in Appropriate Subjects) is a multi-centered, randomized, open-label, parallel group trial. Patients younger than 60 years are eligible. If older than 60 years, patients are eligible if they have an inherited heart rhythm disease, or risk factors for ICD-related complication, such as hemodialysis, a history of ICD or pacemaker infection, heart valve replacement, or severe pulmonary disease. This study will determine if using an S-ICD compared to a TV-ICD reduces a primary composite outcome of perioperative complications including pulmonary or pericardial perforation, lead dislodgement or dysfunction, tricuspid regurgitation and ipsilateral venous thrombosis. Five hundred patients will be enrolled from 14 Canadian hospitals, and data collected to both early- (at 6 months) and mid-term complications (at 24 months) as well as mortality and ICD shock efficacy.

SUMMARY

The ATLAS randomized trial is comparing early- and mid-term vascular and lead-related complications among S-ICD versus TV-ICD recipients who are younger or at higher risk of ICD-related complications.

Impact of transvenous cardiac implantable electronic devices in chronic hemodialysis patients: a single-center, observational comparative study

Background

We investigated the impact of a transvenous cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) placement on outcomes and arteriovenous vascular access (VA) patency among chronic hemodialysis patients.

Methods

This is a single-center, observational comparative study between chronic hemodialysis patients with ipsilateral and contralateral CIED and VA. Forty-two consecutive patients who underwent both CIED placement and upper-extremity VA for hemodialysis, regardless of the sequence and time interval between these 2 procedures, were identified between January 2001 and December 2017. Patients with ipsilateral (n = 22, 52%, the ipsilateral group) and contralateral (n = 20, 48%, the contralateral group) CIED and VA were compared retrospectively; the primary outcome was any-cause mortality and cardiac mortality or the composite of any systemic complications, defined as central venous stenosis or occlusion, any device infections or tricuspid regurgitation; the secondary outcome was CIED or VA malfunction.

Results

During the median follow-up period of 101 months, primary outcome incidence was significantly higher in the ipsilateral group than the contralateral group (73% vs 40%, P = 0.03), although the incidences of any-cause mortality (P = 0.28) and cardiac mortality (P > 0.99) were similar between the groups. Secondary outcome incidence did not differ significantly between the 2 groups (55% vs 30%, P = 0.36). Kaplan–Meier survival analysis revealed similar primary and secondary VA patency rates in both groups. On subgroup analysis, patients with upper arm VA had similar primary and secondary patency to those with forearm VA.

Conclusions

Despite some notable limitations of the study, the retrospective study design and small sample size, we found that the any-cause mortality incidence and VA patency did not differ between the 2 groups, but primary outcome incidence was significantly higher among patients with ipsilateral CIED and VA.

Leadless pacemaker placement in a patient with chronic kidney disease: A strategy to preserve central veins

Cardiac rhythm disorder is frequently encountered in hemodialysis patients and is often treated with a cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED). The conventional CIED requires placement of transvenous leads resulting in subclinical central venous stenosis, which can adversely affect the successful creation of a permanent dialysis vascular access. The technological advancement of a leadless pacemaker provides an opportunity to implement a strategy to preserve central veins in patients with chronic kidney disease. We report a case of successful placement of a leadless pacemaker in a dialysis patient to preserve the central veins for future vascular access creation.

Cardiac implantable electronic device and vascular access: Strategies to overcome problems

For arrhythmia treatment or sudden cardiac death prevention in hemodialysis patients, there is a frequent need for placement of a cardiac implantable electronic device (pacemaker, implantable cardioverter defibrillator, or cardiac resynchronization device). Leads from a cardiac implantable electronic device can cause central vein stenosis and carry the risk of tricuspid regurgitation or contribute to infective endocarditis. In patients with end-stage kidney disease requiring vascular access and cardiac implantable electronic device, the best strategy is to create an arteriovenous fistula on the contralateral upper limb for a cardiac implantable electronic device and avoidance of central vein catheter. Fortunately, cardiac electrotherapy is moving toward miniaturization and less transvenous wires. Whenever feasible, one should avoid transvenous leads and choose alternative options such as subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator, epicardial leads, and leadless pacemaker. Based on recent reports on the leadless pacemaker/implantable cardioverter defibrillator effectiveness, in patients with rapid progression of chronic kidney disease (high risk of renal failure) or glomerular filtration rate <20 mL/min/1.73 m², this option should be considered by the implanting cardiologist for future access protection.

Hemodialysis Tunneled Catheter Noninfectious Complications

Noninfectious hemodialysis catheter complications include catheter dysfunction, catheter-related thrombus, and central vein stenosis. The definitions, causes, and treatment strategies for catheter dysfunction are reviewed below. Catheter-related thrombus is a less common but serious complication of catheters, requiring catheter removal and systemic anticoagulation. In addition, the risk factors, clinical manifestation, and treatment options for central vein stenosis are outlined.

Venous Hemodialysis Catheters and Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices: Avoiding a High-Risk Combination

End-stage renal disease is frequently accompanied by cardiac comorbidity that warrants treatment with a cardiovascular implantable electronic device (permanent pacemaker or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator). In the United States, chronic hemodialysis (HD) population, cardiac implantable devices are present in up to 10.5% of patients; a venous HD catheter is utilized for blood access in 18% of prevalent patients. The concomitant presence of a venous HD catheter and cardiovascular implantable device creates a high-risk circumstance, with potential for causing symptomatic central venous stenosis, and for developing complicated endovascular infection. This dangerous combination may be avoided for many patients by utilizing nondialysis methods for management of advanced chronic kidney disease, initiating dialysis without venous catheter access, or managing cardiac rhythm disorders without use of transvenous cardiac implantable electronic devices. In those situations where the combination of a venous HD catheter and cardiac implantable device is unavoidable, there are strategies to minimize duration of venous catheter access, and to reduce risks for infectious complications. It is essential for nephrologists and cardiologists to understand the indications, alternatives, and risks involved with venous HD access and cardiac implantable devices. Coordinated management of renal disease and cardiac rhythm disorders has potential to minimize risks, improve outcomes, and substantially reduce the cost of care.

Hemodialysis Tunneled Catheter Noninfectious Complications

Noninfectious hemodialysis catheter complications include catheter dysfunction, catheter-related thrombus, and central vein stenosis. The definitions, causes, and treatment strategies for catheter dysfunction are reviewed below. Catheter-related thrombus is a less common but serious complication of catheters, requiring catheter removal and systemic anticoagulation. In addition, the risk factors, clinical manifestation, and treatment options for central vein stenosis are outlined.

Arteriovenous Access Failure, Stenosis, and Thrombosis

Vascular access–related complications can lead to patient morbidity and reduced patient quality of life. Some of the common arteriovenous access complications include failure to mature, stenosis formation, and thrombosis.

Arteriovenous Vascular Access Selection and Evaluation

When making decisions regarding vascular access creation, the clinician and vascular access team must evaluate each patient individually with consideration of life expectancy, timelines for dialysis start, risks and benefits of access creation, referral wait times, as well as the risk for access complications. The role of the multidisciplinary team in facilitating access choice is reviewed, as well as the clinical evaluation of the patient.