A comparison of stenting versus hemodialysis reliable outflow graft for hemodialysis patients with recurrent central venous obstructions.

BACKGROUND

Central venous occlusive disease is a common cause of upper extremity arteriovenous access dysfunction in hemodialysis patients. When refractory to balloon angioplasty, the treatment options include central venous stenting and hemodialysis reliable outflow (HeRO; Merit Medical, South Jordan, Utah) graft. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the outcomes of these options.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed of patients who had undergone central venous stenting or HeRO placement for central venous obstruction from December 2008 to March 2018. The primary outcomes were the reintervention rates, patency, and mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 75 hemodialysis patients were identified after failed balloon angioplasty for central venous obstruction. Of the 75 patients, 44 underwent central venous stenting comprising coverage of the subclavian vein (n = 27), innominate vein (n = 18), and/or superior vena cava (n = 5). Six stent patients later underwent HeRO placement. The stents used were stent grafts in 65% (Viabahn, n = 9; Fluency/Flair, n = 19; iCast, n = 2; and other, n = 1) and bare metal stents in 35% (Wall-stent, n = 6; Protégé, n = 1; Cobalt, n = 1; and other, n = 9). The remaining 31 patients underwent HeRO graft placement. The venous outflow component insertion sites were the internal jugular (n = 20), external jugular (n = 1), subclavian (n = 6), axillary (n = 2), and other (n = 2). The stent and HeRO groups were similar in the previous central venous intervention rates (median, 0.6 [interquartile range (IQR), 0-3.0]; vs median, 3.5 [IQR, 0-10.1] annually; P = .679). After the index procedure, no difference was found between the two groups in the frequency of dialysis circuit interventions annually (median, 2.0 [IQR, 0-6.0]; vs median, 2.0 [IQR, 0-7.0]; P = .291) nor central venous interventions (ie, angioplasty of the central veins or within the portion of the HeRO inside the central veins) annually (median, 2.0 [IQR, 0-4.1]; vs median, 0 [IQR, 0-2.4]; P = .419). The 1-year access circuit primary patency was 8.1% for stenting and 22.2% for HeRO (P = .109). The 2-year access circuit secondary patency was 40.0% for stenting and 52.4% for HeRO (P = .401). The all-cause mortality was similar at 1 year (3.7% vs 4.8%; P = .856) and 2 years (11.8% vs 23.5%; P = .368).

CONCLUSIONS

Central venous stenting and HeRO were shown to have similar rates of reintervention and patency. The results from the present study suggest that the multiple treatment options available for this problematic disease process can yield similar results when careful patient selection is applied.