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

Katherine Clark, Jeffrey Forris Beecham Chick, Shilpa N. Reddy, Benjamin J. Shin, Gregory J. Nadolski, Timothy W. Clark, Scott O. Trerotola

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)602-607
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology
Volume28
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 1 2017

Fingerprint

Stents
Catheters
Equipment and Supplies
Pathologic Constriction
Superior Vena Cava Syndrome
Control Groups

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Clark, Katherine ; Chick, Jeffrey Forris Beecham ; Reddy, Shilpa N. ; Shin, Benjamin J. ; Nadolski, Gregory J. ; Clark, Timothy W. ; Trerotola, Scott O. / 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. In: Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology. 2017 ; Vol. 28, No. 4. pp. 602-607.
@article{a1bab0e30e014f5cab791e9b16d7475d,
title = "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",
abstract = "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.",
author = "Katherine Clark and Chick, {Jeffrey Forris Beecham} and Reddy, {Shilpa N.} and Shin, {Benjamin J.} and Nadolski, {Gregory J.} and Clark, {Timothy W.} and Trerotola, {Scott O.}",
year = "2017",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jvir.2016.12.1222",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "28",
pages = "602--607",
journal = "Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology",
issn = "1051-0443",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "4",

}

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. / Clark, Katherine; Chick, Jeffrey Forris Beecham; Reddy, Shilpa N.; Shin, Benjamin J.; Nadolski, Gregory J.; Clark, Timothy W.; Trerotola, Scott O.

In: Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Vol. 28, No. 4, 01.04.2017, p. 602-607.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - 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

AU - Clark, Katherine

AU - Chick, Jeffrey Forris Beecham

AU - Reddy, Shilpa N.

AU - Shin, Benjamin J.

AU - Nadolski, Gregory J.

AU - Clark, Timothy W.

AU - Trerotola, Scott O.

PY - 2017/4/1

Y1 - 2017/4/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85013414625&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85013414625&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jvir.2016.12.1222

DO - 10.1016/j.jvir.2016.12.1222

M3 - Article

C2 - 28238580

AN - SCOPUS:85013414625

VL - 28

SP - 602

EP - 607

JO - Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology

JF - Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology

SN - 1051-0443

IS - 4

ER -