Treatment of central venous in-stent restenosis with repeat stent deployment in hemodialysis patients

Stent migration as complication of endovascular treatment of vascular access stenosis: A systemic review

Outflow vein stenosis is one of the commonest complications of both native and prosthetic vascular access. Together with angioplasty, first-line treatment is stenting. Although it has been described as a uncommon complication, the risk of stent migration should be always considered. We aimed to conduct a systematic review of literature concerning stents migration in vascular access, the possible outcomes and treatments. This study was performed applying Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Searches were conducted in PubMed/Medline, Scopus, and Google scholar databases. Studies selection, data abstraction was done by two different reviewers. We identified 17 studies, comprising 18 cases (M:F 1:1, mean age 56 ± 18 (range 33-88)). All the patients underwent stenting for vascular access outflow stenosis. The commonest type of device reported was self expandible bare-metal stent. Intraoperative evidence of stent migration occurred in six cases at the final quality control, or for intraprocedure dyspnea onset. In two patients it was a incidental diagnosis. In the remaining cases, chest pain or dyspnea were the common delayed presentation symptoms. Even if stent migration is an uncommon event, it is burdened with low mortality and morbidity. Literature provide only few and frequently inadequate data. Stent removal is the treatment of choice when severe symptoms or cardiopulmonary complication are present. Endovascular procedures demonstrated to be an effective and safe alternative, while open surgical treatment is preferred whenever endovascular therapy failed or in selected cases.

Results of Stenting for Central Venous Occlusions and Stenoses in the Hemodialysis Patients

Objectives: We aim to investigate the results of stenting for central venous occlusions and stenoses in the hemodialysis patients.

Methods: Twenty-nine cases treated with endovascular recanalization with deployment of bare metal stent (BMS) for central venous occlusions (24 cases) and recurrent stenoses (5 cases) between 2014 and 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. Results of these procedures including success rate, operative time, estimated blood loss, morbidity, primary patency, assisted primary patency and freedom from target-lesion revascularization (TLR) were evaluated.

Results: Nine lesions were in brachiocephalic vein (Occlusion/Stenosis: 8/1) and 20 lesions were in subclavian vein (Occlusion/Stenosis: 16/4). Procedural success was 94% (29/31 cases) and operation time/estimated blood loss was 68±39 min/28±54 g. Symptom were relieved or disappeared in all successful cases. Morbidity (extravasation of contrast medium) was 3% (1/29). During the period of observation, 1 stent fracture with occlusion and 1 stent migration to periphery were recognized. 1-year primary patency, freedom from TLR, and assisted primary patency were 40% (median patent time: 256 days), 67% (median patent time: 524 days), and 77%, respectively.

Conclusion: Stenting for central venous occlusions and stenoses in the hemodialysis patients is safe and durable treatment option. However, considering its off-label use and potential hazard including vessel rupture, stent migration, and stent fracture, the indication for BMS deployment should be conservative, and interventionist should be well acquainted with prevention and measures to these complications. (This is a translation of Jpn J Vasc Surg 2019; 28: 193–198.)

Efficacy of stent-graft placement to salvage central vein stents with recalcitrant restenosis in patients with arteriovenous fistulas

The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness and permanency of stent-graft placement to salvage stents with recalcitrant restenosis due to central vein stenosis (CVS). Between May 2014 and February 2016, VIABAHN stent-grafts were deployed in patients with functioning arteriovenous (AV) fistulas who underwent previous bare metal stent (BMS) placement and had recalcitrant stent restenosis that did not respond to percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA). Surveillance was carried out at 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months with diagnostic fistulography. Fourteen patients initially underwent 15 BMS placements. In the follow-up period (range, 118-976 days), patients presented with symptomatic venous hypertension; subsequently, a total of 52 unsuccessful repeat PTAs for BMS restenosis were undertaken, and the median primary access survival of PTAs was 66 ± 43 days. For salvage, 14 stent-grafts were placed in segments with recalcitrant restenosis of a CVS stent. Within 1.25 ± 0.72 days after stent-graft placement, patients who initially presented with symptomatic venous hypertension reported complete resolution. The median primary access survival (mean, 1183 ± 312 days) was longer than PTAs alone (P < .01). No major or minor complications were associated with stent-graft deployment or any of the subsequent interventions in the study period. The primary patency rate at 6, 12, and 18 months was 100%, and it was 85.7% at 24 months. The secondary access patency rate was 92.9% at 24 months. In conclusion, stent-graft placement to salvage CVS stents with recalcitrant restenosis in patients with AV fistulas is safe and effective if PTAs fails to maintain luminal patency.