Sharp recanalization with transseptal needle for unsuccessful standard recanalization of chronic thoracic central vein occlusion in hemodialysis patients

Keerati Hongsakul,Phurich Janjindamai,Surasit Akkakisee,Sorracha Rookkapan,Kittipitch Bannangkoon,Panat Nisityotakul,Ussanee Boonsrirat,Pongsanae Duangpakdee,Dhanakom Premprabha
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/11297298241278007
2024-09-05
Abstract:Background: Many cases of chronic thoracic central vein occlusion (CVO) fail to recanalize using the standard conventional guidewire technique. This study aims to present the outcomes of sharp recanalization with a transseptal needle in chronic thoracic CVO. Methods: This retrospective study involved 22 hemodialysis patients who developed clinical signs and symptoms of CVO, had unsuccessful conventional endovascular treatment using guidewire, and underwent sharp recanalization with a transseptal needle from January 2018 to December 2021. Demographic information of patients, technical success rate, and complications were kept. Post-intervention primary patency rate was examined using survival regression. Results: Thirteen men and nine women were enrolled with a median age of 50 years (range: 30-83 years). The most common site of thoracic CVO was the right brachiocephalic vein (21 patients). The average length of occlusion was 2.5 cm (range: 1-4.4 cm). Technical success rate was 90.9% (20 patients). Major complications occurred in three instances, including severe hemothorax and pulmonary edema. The median post-intervention primary patency between balloon angioplasty alone and primary stenting was 2.1 and 8.0 months (p = 0.015). Post-intervention primary patency rates at 6 and 12 months in the group receiving balloon angioplasty alone versus primary stenting were 33.3% and 0% versus 70.6% and 29.4% (p = 0.013). Conclusion: Sharp recanalization with a transseptal needle is successful in chronic thoracic CVO cases that fail with conventional recanalization. Primary stenting in this CVO lesion shows a greater primary patency compared to balloon angioplasty alone.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?