Sun Ji-Bo, Zhao Qiu-Yan, Salerno Stephen, Shen Xi, Li Yi, Fu Ping, Cui Tian-Lei
Department of Nephrology, West China Hospital/West China School of Medicine, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Outpatient Department, West China Hospital/West China School of Nursing, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Ann Transl Med. 2022 Jul;10(14):768. doi: 10.21037/atm-22-3131.
Central vein occlusion (CVO) is a serious problem in hemodialysis patients. There is an unsatisfactory result for refractory CVO by sharp recanalization alone. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of blunt impingement followed by sharp recanalization for the treatment of CVO in hemodialysis patients.
This study retrospectively examined hemodialysis patients with CVO who failed to recanalize using standard guidewire and catheter techniques in our department. In the first instance, all CVOs were recanalized using blunt impingement techniques, including a 6-Fr long sheath (Cook Incorporated, Bloomington, IN USA) and an 8-Fr sheath of Rosch-Uchida Transjugular Liver Access Set (RUPS-100; Cook Incorporated, Bloomington, IN, USA). If this was not successful, sharp recanalization devices were applied, including the stiff tip of a guidewire (Terumo, Tokyo, Japan), the RUPS-100, and the percutaneous transhepatic cholangial drainage (PTCD) needle (Cook Incorporated, USA). All patients were followed up at least 4 months postoperatively. The technical success rate, arteriovenous access patency rates, and operation-related complications were analyzed.
The procedural success rate was 100.0% (30 of 30). Thirty patients with CVO underwent blunt impingement with a technique success rate of 70.0% (21 of 30), and 9 patients received sharp recanalization after failed blunt impingement, with a technique success rate of 100.0% (9 of 9). The primary patency rates at 6 and 12 months postoperatively were 86.7% and 53.3%, respectively. The primary assisted patency rates were 93.3% and 63.3%, and the secondary patency rates were 93.3% and 70.0% at 6 and 12 months, respectively. One major procedure-related complication was detected, namely, a small injury of the superior vena cava (SVC) wall in a patient receiving recanalization via the stiff end of a guidewire, but this did not require further treatment.
It is potentially effective and safe for interventionalists to use blunt impingement followed by sharp recanalization techniques to treat chronic CVO that is refractory to traversal using traditional catheter and guidewire techniques.
中心静脉闭塞(CVO)是血液透析患者面临的一个严重问题。仅通过锐性再通治疗难治性CVO的效果并不理想。本研究评估了钝性冲击联合锐性再通治疗血液透析患者CVO的有效性和安全性。
本研究回顾性分析了在我科采用标准导丝和导管技术未能实现再通的CVO血液透析患者。首先,所有CVO均采用钝性冲击技术进行再通,包括使用6F长鞘(美国印第安纳州布卢明顿市库克公司)和Rosch-Uchida经颈静脉肝内门体分流术套装(RUPS-100;美国印第安纳州布卢明顿市库克公司)的8F鞘。如果不成功,则应用锐性再通装置,包括导丝硬头(日本东京泰尔茂公司)、RUPS-100和经皮经肝胆道引流(PTCD)针(美国库克公司)。所有患者术后至少随访4个月。分析技术成功率、动静脉通路通畅率及手术相关并发症。
手术成功率为100.0%(30例中的30例)。30例CVO患者接受钝性冲击,技术成功率为70.0%(30例中的21例),9例钝性冲击失败后接受锐性再通,技术成功率为100.0%(9例中的9例)。术后6个月和12个月的主要通畅率分别为86.7%和53.3%。术后6个月和12个月的主要辅助通畅率分别为93.3%和63.3%,次要通畅率分别为93.3%和70.0%。检测到1例主要手术相关并发症,即1例通过导丝硬端进行再通的患者上腔静脉(SVC)壁出现小损伤,但无需进一步治疗。
对于介入医生而言,采用钝性冲击联合锐性再通技术治疗传统导管和导丝技术难以通过的慢性CVO可能是有效且安全的。