Czajkowski Marek, Polewczyk Anna, Jacheć Wojciech, Nowosielecka Dorota, Tułecki Łukasz, Stefańczyk Paweł, Kutarski Andrzej
Department of Cardiac Surgery, Medical University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland.
Department of Physiology, Pathophysiology and Clinical Immunology, Institute of Medical Sciences, Jan Kochanowski University, Kielce, Poland.
Cardiovasc Diagn Ther. 2023 Dec 15;13(6):1068-1079. doi: 10.21037/cdt-23-104. Epub 2023 Oct 27.
Lead-dependent venous occlusion may impede the insertion of a central venous access device (CVAD). The aim of this retrospective, cohort study was to assess the chance of implantation of CVAD in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs).
We reviewed and analyzed 3,075 venograms of patients with CIEDs undergoing transvenous lead extraction (TLE) between June 2008 and July 2021. Relationship between venous patency and the chance of CVAD placement was estimated.
In 2,318 (75.38%) patients, venography showed no potential obstacles to venous port implantation on the ipsilateral side. In patients with leads on the left side, significant narrowing more often affected the subclavian vein than the brachiocephalic vein [1,595 (55.29%) 830 (28.63%), respectively] or the superior vena cava (SVC) [21 (0.73%) cases]. Furthermore, the subclavian and brachiocephalic veins on the opposite side were also narrowed [35 (2.35%) and 27 (1.24%), respectively]. The chances of port insertion were assessed as easy on CIED side or opposite side in 2,318 (75.38%) and 2,291 (97.91%) patients, respectively), as difficult insertion/questionable performance in 246 (8.00%) and 22 (0.94% patients) and doubtful or impossible insertion/questionable performance in 511 (16.62%)/27 (1.15%) patients with CIED.
(I) Varying degrees of lead-dependent venous obstruction (LDVO) is a frequent finding in patients with CIEDs; (II) the major thoracic veins on the opposite side of the chest may also be significantly narrowed; (III) venography should be considered before attempted CVAD insertion in patients with long lead dwell times or in patients after CIED removal, including planned contralateral port placement.
铅依赖性静脉闭塞可能会妨碍中心静脉通路装置(CVAD)的置入。这项回顾性队列研究的目的是评估心脏植入式电子设备(CIED)患者植入CVAD的可能性。
我们回顾并分析了2008年6月至2021年7月期间接受经静脉导线拔除(TLE)的CIED患者的3075份静脉造影图像。评估了静脉通畅情况与CVAD置入可能性之间的关系。
在2318例(75.38%)患者中,静脉造影显示同侧静脉端口植入无潜在障碍。在左侧有导线的患者中,锁骨下静脉比头臂静脉[分别为1595例(55.29%)和830例(28.63%)]或上腔静脉(SVC)[21例(0.73%)]更常出现明显狭窄。此外,对侧的锁骨下静脉和头臂静脉也变窄了[分别为35例(2.35%)和27例(1.24%)]。在2318例(75.38%)和2291例(97.91%)患者中,分别评估在CIED侧或对侧进行端口插入的可能性为容易,在246例(8.00%)和22例(0.94%)患者中为插入困难/操作可疑,在511例(16.62%)/27例(1.15%)CIED患者中为可疑或无法插入/操作可疑。
(I)不同程度的铅依赖性静脉阻塞(LDVO)在CIED患者中很常见;(II)胸部对侧的主要胸段静脉也可能明显变窄;(III)对于导线留置时间长的患者或CIED移除后的患者,包括计划进行对侧端口置入的患者,在尝试置入CVAD之前应考虑进行静脉造影。