Concurrent Central Venous Stent and Central Venous Access Device Placement Does Not Compromise Stent Patency or Catheter Function in Patients with Malignant Central Venous Obstruction.

Autor: Clark K; Division of Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Perelman School of Medicine, 1 Silverstein, 3400 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104., Chick JF; Division of Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Perelman School of Medicine, 1 Silverstein, 3400 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104; Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan., Reddy SN; Division of Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Perelman School of Medicine, 1 Silverstein, 3400 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104; Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Radiology Associates of the Main Line, Main Line Health System, Bryn Mawr Hospital, Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania., Shin BJ; Division of Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Perelman School of Medicine, 1 Silverstein, 3400 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104., Nadolski GJ; Division of Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Perelman School of Medicine, 1 Silverstein, 3400 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104., Clark TW; Division of Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Perelman School of Medicine, 1 Silverstein, 3400 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104., Trerotola SO; Division of Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Perelman School of Medicine, 1 Silverstein, 3400 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104. Electronic address: Scott.trerotola@uphs.upenn.edu.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR [J Vasc Interv Radiol] 2017 Apr; Vol. 28 (4), pp. 602-607. Date of Electronic Publication: 2017 Feb 24.
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvir.2016.12.1222
Abstrakt: Purpose: To determine if concurrent placement of a central venous stent (CVS) and central venous access device (CVAD) compromises stent patency or catheter function in patients with malignant central venous obstruction.
Materials and Methods: CVS placement for symptomatic stenosis resulting from malignant compression was performed in 33 consecutive patients who were identified retrospectively over a 10-year period; 28 (85%) patients had superior vena cava syndrome, and 5 (15%) had arm swelling. Of patients, 11 (33%) underwent concurrent CVS and CVAD placement, exchange, or repositioning; 22 (67%) underwent CVS deployment alone and served as the control group. Types of CVADs ranged from 5-F to 9.5-F catheters. Endpoints were CVS patency as determined by clinical symptoms or CT and CVAD function, which was determined by clinical performance.
Results: All procedures were technically successful. There was no difference between the 2 groups in clinically symptomatic CVS occlusion (P = .2) or asymptomatic in-stent stenosis detected on CT (P = .5). None of the patients in the CVS and CVAD group had recurrent clinical symptoms, but 3 (30%) of 10 patients with imaging follow-up had asymptomatic in-stent stenosis. In the control group, 3 (14%) patients had clinically symptomatic CVS occlusion and required stent revision, whereas 4 (21%) of 19 patients with imaging follow-up had asymptomatic in-stent stenosis. During the study, 2 (20%) functional but radiographically malpositioned catheters were identified (0.66 per 1,000 catheter days).
Conclusions: Presence of a CVAD through a CVS may not compromise stent patency or catheter function compared with CVS placement alone.
(Copyright © 2017 SIR. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)
Databáze: MEDLINE