Patency rates for angioplasty in the treatment of pacemaker-induced central venous stenosis in hemodialysis patients: results of a multi-center study

Superior Vena Cava Decompression After Complicated Stent Placement for Innominate Vein Obstruction in a VVI-ICD Patient

OBJECTIVES

This report discusses the challenges and strategies involved in managing venous stenosis secondary to pacing or defibrillator leads, focusing on endovascular treatment options and procedural considerations.

KEY PROCEDURAL STEPS

Crucial steps of the procedure include thorough preprocedural planning, obtaining multisite venous access for optimal angiographic visualization, wiring through the stent using a percutaneous coronary intervention wire supported by a microcatheter and guiding catheter, confirming true lumen and intraluminal wire passage, and progressive ballooning using high-pressure balloons and kissing balloon technique.

POTENTIAL PITFALLS

Procedural complications include crushing of the pacing leads within the stent, incomplete stent expansion, and aggravation of existing stenosis. Ensuring correct wire trajectory and using multiple imaging modalities are critical to avoiding these issues.

TAKE-HOME MESSAGE

Venous stenosis related to pacing leads requires a multidisciplinary approach, with careful preprocedural planning and meticulous technique.

Sudden cardiac death in patients with kidney failure on renal replacement therapy: An unsolved problem

Sudden cardiac death is an important cause of mortality in patients with kidney failure undergoing renal replacement therapy, either hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis. The risk factors associated with sudden cardiac death in these patients only partly overlap with those in the general population. Kidney failure per se and hemodialysis therapy expose these patients to an increased risk of sudden cardiac death compared with individuals with preserved renal function. Studies of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death in patients with kidney failure have failed to demonstrate its usefulness. Moreover, the incidence of complications associated with cardiac electronic device implantation in this population is extremely high. This review aims to provide an update on the available studies on the pathophysiology and prevention of sudden cardiac death in patients with kidney failure undergoing dialysis and to propose the adoption of clinical practices to reduce its incidence.

Long-Term Complications Related to Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are commonly used for a number of cardiac-related conditions, and it is estimated that over 300,000 CIEDs are placed annually in the US. With advances in technology surrounding these devices and expanding indications, CIEDs can remain implanted in patients for long periods of time. Although the safety profile of these devices has improved over time, both the incidence and prevalence of long-term complications are expected to increase. This review highlights pertinent long-term complications of CIEDs, including lead-related issues, device-related arrhythmias, inappropriate device therapies, and device-related infections. We also explore key clinical aspects of each complication, including common presentations, patient-specific and non-modifiable risk factors, diagnostic evaluation, and recommended management strategies. Our goal is to help spread awareness of CIED-related complications and to empower physicians to manage them effectively.

Transvenous Dual-Chamber Pacemaker Implantation in a Patient with Persistent Left Superior Vena Cava Undergoing Maintenance Hemodialysis

Background

Persistent left superior vena cava (PLSVC) is a rare congenital venous anomaly. Permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) in patients with PLSVC presents challenges in placing both the right ventricular and atrial leads. The article describes a technique for dual-chamber PPI using standard leads in a PLSVC patient with chronic kidney disease on maintenance hemodialysis.

Case Presentation

A 69-year-old male patient with sick sinus syndrome (SSS), hypertension, moderate mitral regurgitation, dilated left ventricle, diabetes, chronic kidney disease (on hemodialysis), and NYHA III heart failure underwent dual-chamber pacemaker implantation via the left axillary vein. Venography revealed a persistent left superior vena cava, a challenge for the placement of leads. The ventricular lead was positioned in the right ventricular outflow tract using a Biotronik active fixation lead with a "C" shaped stylet, and the atrial lead was placed in the right atrial lateral wall. The procedure took 115 minutes with 17.5 minutes of fluoroscopy. After 4 months, the patient showed symptom improvement and stable pacing parameters.

Conclusion

Dual chamber pacemaker implantation through PLSVC in a patient undergoing maintenance hemodialysis using a "C" shaped stylet technique is feasible, safe, and effective.

Pacemaker-Induced Superior Vena Cava Syndrome

Superior vena cava (SVC) syndrome is a result of impaired blood flow from the SVC to the right atrium, leading to venous congestion in the head and neck. It can be caused by clotting disorders or compressive tumors of the head and neck but has become more prevalent in the setting of implantable devices such as pacemakers. As such, managing these patients can present challenges for physicians who have to account for SVC syndrome as well as their underlying condition requiring an implantable cardiac device. Our case represents one such patient who developed SVC syndrome as a result of pacemaker lead-related formation that was treated with both invasive and noninvasive therapy. This presentation highlights the successful management of SVC syndrome in a patient with sick sinus syndrome. It also demonstrates the efficacy of balloon angioplasty in managing this particular type of SVC syndrome, as well as exemplifying the use of leadless pacemaker devices as a means of long-term prevention.

Percutaneous balloon venoplasty for symptomatic lead-related venous stenosis

BACKGROUND

Lead-related venous stenosis (LRVS) is common after transvenous lead implantation and generally diagnosed incidentally. Symptomatic LRVS, causing discomfort and swelling, is less common.

OBJECTIVE

We report on the management and outcomes of patients with symptomatic LRVS after percutaneous balloon venoplasty.

METHODS

We included patients with symptomatic LRVS unresponsive to >30 days of anticoagulation who underwent venoplasty at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania between 2014 and 2020. Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) was performed first if the lesion could not be crossed with a wire.

RESULTS

Eighteen patients (mean age, 62 ± 10 years; 44% female) underwent 27 venoplasty procedures. Symptoms included arm swelling in 9 (50%), facial/neck swelling in 1 (6%), and both in 8 (44%). Venography revealed LRVS in the axillary/subclavian veins in 10 (56%), the brachiocephalic vein in 6 (33%), and the superior vena cava in 4 (11%). Most patients (83%) required TLE before venoplasty, and only 5 of 18 (28%) remained with leads crossing the stenosed segment. Thirteen patients (72%) had complete symptom resolution, 4 (22%) had partial resolution due to secondary lymphedema, and 1 showed no improvement. Patients with complete resolution had shorter times from symptom onset to intervention (195 vs 690 days; P = .02).

CONCLUSION

LRVS can affect any part of the venous system and may be manifested with swelling of the arm, face/neck, or both. Balloon venoplasty is safe and effective, often requires TLE, and is particularly durable when leads no longer cross the stenosed region. Venoplasty is less effective for secondary lymphedema, highlighting the need for timely intervention.

The Micra Transcatheter Pacing System: past, present and the future

Leadless permanent pacemakers represent an important innovation in cardiac device developments. Although transvenous permanent pacemakers have become indispensable in managing bradyarrhythmia and saving numerous lives, the use of transvenous systems comes with notable risks tied to intravascular leads and subcutaneous pockets. This drawback has spurred the creation of leadless cardiac pacemakers. Within this analysis, we compile existing clinical literature and proceed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the Micra Transcatheter Pacing System. We also delve into the protocols for addressing a malfunctioning or end-of-life Micra as well as device extraction. Lastly, we explore prospects in this domain, such as the emergence of entirely leadless cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator devices.

Central vein stenosis in hemodialysis vascular access: clinical manifestations and contemporary management strategies

Central venous stenosis is a significant and frequently encountered problem in managing hemodialysis (HD) patients. Venous hypertension, often accompanied by severe symptoms, undermines the integrity of the hemodialysis access circuit. In central venous stenosis, dialysis through an arteriovenous fistula is usually inefficient, with high recirculation rates and prolonged bleeding after dialysis. Central vein stenosis is a known complication of indwelling intravascular and cardiac devices, such as peripherally inserted central catheters, long-term cuffed hemodialysis catheters, and pacemaker wires. Hence, preventing this challenging condition requires minimization of central venous catheter use. Endovascular interventions are the primary approach for treating central vein stenosis. Percutaneous angioplasty and stent placement may reestablish vascular function in cases of elastic and recurrent lesions. Currently, there is no consensus on the optimal treatment, as existing management approaches have a wide range of patency rates.

Intracardiac leadless versus transvenous permanent pacemaker implantation: Impact on clinical outcomes and healthcare utilization

BACKGROUND

Transvenous permanent pacemakers are used frequently to treat cardiac rhythm disorders. Recently, intracardiac leadless pacemakers offer potential treatment using an alternative insertion procedure due to their novel design. Literature comparing outcomes between the two devices is scarce. We aim to assess the impact of intracardiac leadless pacemakers on readmissions and hospitalization trends.

METHODS

We analyzed the National Readmissions Database from 2016 to 2019, seeking patients admitted for sick sinus syndrome, second-degree-, or third-degree atrioventricular block who received either a transvenous permanent pacemaker or an intracardiac leadless pacemaker. Patients were stratified by device type and assessed for 30-day readmissions, inpatient mortality, and healthcare utilization. Descriptive statistics, Cox proportional hazards, and multivariate regressions were used to compare the groups.

RESULTS

Between 2016 and 2019, 21,782 patients met the inclusion criteria. The mean age was 81.07 years, and 45.52 % were female. No statistical difference was noted for 30-day readmissions (HR 1.14, 95 % CI 0.92-1.41, p = 0.225) and inpatient mortality (HR 1.36, 95 % CI 0.71-2.62, p = 0.352) between the transvenous and intracardiac groups. Multivariate linear regression revealed that length of stay was 0.54 (95 % CI 0.26-0.83, p < 0.001) days longer for the intracardiac group.

CONCLUSION

Hospitalization outcomes associated with intracardiac leadless pacemakers are comparable to traditional transvenous permanent pacemakers. Patients may benefit from using this new device without incurring additional resource utilization. Further studies are needed to compare long-term outcomes between transvenous and intracardiac pacemakers.

Objective Performance Goals Based on a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Outcomes for Bare-Metal Stents and Percutaneous Transluminal Angioplasty for Hemodialysis-Related Central Venous Obstruction

PURPOSE

To use safety and efficacy outcomes following treatment with percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) and/or stent placement for thoracic central venous obstruction in hemodialysis-dependent patients to establish objective performance goals (OPGs).

METHODS

A systematic literature review and meta-analysis were conducted for articles published between January 1, 2000, and August 31, 2021. Efficacy outcomes included primary patency rates at 6 and 12 months, and safety outcomes included adverse events (AEs) categorized as access loss, procedure-related AEs, and serious AEs (SAEs). OPGs were derived from the upper and lower bounds of the 95% confidence intervals for primary patency and SAE rates.

RESULTS

Of 66 articles reviewed, 17 met the inclusion criteria (PTA, n = 4; stent placement, n = 5; PTA/stent, n = 8). The 6- and 12-month primary patency rates for PTA were 50.9% and 36.7%, respectively. Based on these findings, the proposed 6- and 12-month primary patency OPGs identifying superiority against PTA were 66.5% and 52.6%, respectively, and those for noninferiority were 39.0% and 25.7%, respectively. For stent placement, the 6- and 12-month primary patency rates were 69.7% and 47.9%, respectively. The proposed 6- and 12-month primary patency OPGs identifying superiority were 82.1% and 64.1%, respectively, and those for noninferiority were 59.3% and 35.8%, respectively. SAE rates for PTA and stent placement were 3.8% and 8.1%, respectively. Proposed safety OPGs for noninferiority versus superiority for PTA and stent placement were 10.1% versus 1.4% and 13.6% versus 4.8%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The OPGs derived from real-world studies of PTA and stent placement may serve as a benchmark for future interventions indicated for this patient population.

Leadless Pacing: Therapy, Challenges and Novelties

Leadless pacing is a rapidly growing field. Initially designed to provide right ventricular pacing for those who were contraindicated for conventional devices, the technology is growing to explore the potential benefit of avoiding long-term transvenous leads in any patient who requires pacing. In this review, we first examine the safety and performance of leadless pacing devices. We then review the evidence for their use in special populations, such as patients with high risk of device infection, patients on haemodialysis, and patients with vasovagal syncope who represent a younger population who may wish to avoid transvenous pacing. We also summarise the evidence for leadless cardiac resynchronisation therapy and conduction system pacing and discuss the challenges of managing issues, such as system revisions, end of battery life and extractions. Finally, we discuss future directions in the field, such as completely leadless cardiac resynchronisation therapy-defibrillator devices and whether leadless pacing has the potential to become a first-line therapy in the near future.

Leadless cardiac ventricular pacing using helix fixation: Step-by-step guide to implantation

INTRODUCTION

Leadless cardiac pacemakers are an alternative modality to traditional transvenous pacemaker systems. Recently receiving Food and Drug Administration approval, the AVEIR VR leadless pacemaker system provides a helix based active fixation leadless pacemaker system. This step-by-step review will cover patient selection, preprocedural planning, device implantation technique, implant site evaluation, troubleshooting, short- and long-term complications as well as future directions for leadless pacing.

METHODS

We collected and reviewed cases from primary operators to provide a step-by-step review for implanters.

RESULTS

Our paper provides a guide to patient selection, pre-procedural planning, device im plantation technique, implant site evaluation, troubleshooting, short- and long-term complications as well as future directions for leadless pacing.

CONCLUSION

The helix based active fixation leadless pacemaker system is a safe and efficacious way to provide pacing support to patients and provides an alternative to transvenous pacing systems. Our review provides a step-by-step guide to implantation.

Chronic kidney disease is associated with increased all-cause mortality in transvenous lead extraction: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The impact of chronic kidney disease (CKD) or end-stage renal disease (ESRD) on patients receiving transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is not well-established. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the association between CKD and all-cause mortality in TLE.

METHODS

We searched the databases of PubMed and EMBASE from inception to April 2022. Included studies were published TLE studies that compared the risk of mortality in CKD patients compared to control patients. Data from each study were combined using the random-effects model.

RESULTS

Eight studies (5,013 patients) were included. Compared with controls, CKD patients had a significantly higher risk of overall all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.14, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.65-2.77, I²  = 51.1%, p < .001). The risk of overall all-cause mortality increased with the severity of CKD for nonspecific CKD (HR = 2.01, 95% CI: 1.49-2.69, I²  = 53.4, p < .001) and ESRD (HR = 2.79, 95% CI: 1.85-4.23, I²  = 0%, p < .001). The risk of all-cause mortality in CKD is double at follow-up ≤1 year (HR = 1.99, 95% CI: 1.29-3.09, I²  = 50.9%, p = .002) and higher at follow-up >1 year (HR = 2.36, 95% CI: 1.63-3.42, I²   = 59.7%, p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis demonstrates a significantly increased risk of overall all-cause mortality in patients with CKD who underwent TLE compared to controls.

The role of stents in hemodialysis vascular access

Vascular access is the Achilles' heel of dialysis therapy among patient with end stage kidney disease. The development of neointimal hyperplasia and subsequent stenosis is common in vascular access and is associated with significant morbidity. Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty using balloon inflation was the standard therapy of these lesions. However, the balloon-based approaches were associated with poor vascular access patency rate necessitating new inventions. It is within this context that different types of stents were developed in order to improve the overall dialysis vascular access functionality. In this article, we review the available literature regarding the use of stents in treating dialysis vascular access stenotic lesions. Further, we review the major clinical trials of stent use in different anatomic locations and in different clinical scenarios.

Superior Vena Cava Syndrome

Superior vena cava (SVC) syndrome comprises a constellation of clinical signs and symptoms caused by obstruction of blood flow through the SVC. The management of patients with life-threatening SVC syndrome is evolving from radiation therapy to endovascular therapy as the first-line treatment. There is a paucity of data and societal guidelines with regard to the management of SVC syndrome. This paper aims to update the practicing interventionalists with the contemporary and the evolving therapeutic approach to SVC syndrome. In addition, the review will focus on endovascular techniques, including catheter-directed thrombolysis, angioplasty, and stenting, and their associated complications.

Central Venoplasty in Patients with Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices

Objective The aim of this study was to assess the safety and effectiveness of the central venous angioplasty in patients with central venous occlusion and cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) without lead extraction.

Materials and Methods A retrospective study was used to evaluate the effectiveness of 37 central venous angioplasty procedure for 15 patients with CIED without lead extraction.

Results Technical success was achieved in 97% (n = 36/37) and clinical success was achieved in 89% (33/37) of the procedures. One procedure failed recanalization of chronic total occlusion of the left subclavian vein, and the patient required fistula embolization due to severe arm swelling. Another procedure failed initially to recanalize long-segment occlusion involving the right subclavian vein/brachiocephalic vein and superior vena cava in a patient with a history of Hickman line and left-sided CIED. This was successfully recanalized and angioplastied on a subsequent session. No lead fracture or dislodgment was documented in any procedure. No procedure-related complication was documented within 2 weeks after the angioplasty. Six-month primary patency was achieved in 62% (23/37) of the procedures. Ten patients (66%) required an average of 1.4 reinterventions (range: 1–4 interventions) during the follow-up time with mean time to reintervention of 318 days (5–1,380 days). Two patients required early reinterventions within 10 days due to catheter dysfunction.

Conclusion Findings of this study support the existing evidence on the safety and effectiveness of balloon angioplasty without lead extraction.

Successful upgrade to cardiac resynchronization therapy for cardiac implantation-associated left subclavian vein occlusion: A case report

BACKGROUND

Subclavian vein stenosis or occlusion may be caused by a transvenous pacemaker, which makes the reimplantation of a new pacemaker lead difficult. Transvenous pacemaker lead implantation-related subclavian vein occlusion may present difficulty with regard to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) upgrade.

CASE SUMMARY

We report the case of a 46-year-old man who was admitted with total subclavian vein occlusion caused by a permanent pacemaker that had been implanted 2 years previously. We successfully treated this patient with an upgrade to a CRT pacemaker by utilizing transferable interventional coronary and radiological techniques. The patient recovered uneventfully during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSION

CRT upgrade is still a viable technique for the treatment of subclavian vein obstruction caused by previous pacemaker implantation.

Lead-associated Superior Vena Cava Syndrome

Superior vena cava (SVC) syndrome is a rare complication associated with transvenous cardiac implantable electronic devices that may present with a variety of manifestations. Various strategies such as transvenous lead extraction, anticoagulation, venoplasty, and stenting have been used to treat this condition, but the optimal management protocols have yet to be defined. Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) (S-ICD) therapy can be an alternative option to a transvenous system for those who require future ICD surveillance. We present a case of lead-associated SVC syndrome where thoracic venous congestion due to SVC obstruction influenced preimplant S-ICD QRS vector screening. Following treatment of venous obstruction, QRS amplitude may change and patients who were not initially S-ICD candidates may later become eligible.

Cardiovascular implantable electronic devices and native arteriovenous fistula in hemodialysis patients: novel perspectives

The benefits from cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIED) implantation in hemodialysis (HD) patients are still far to be thoroughly defined, especially on primary prevention. In addition, CIED placement is not a risk-free procedure, because it could be followed by a not negligible burden of complications that could compromise the health and the vascular access of HD patients. In fact, the arteriovenous fistula (AVF) dysfunction following CIED implantation is usually due to a hemodynamically significant alteration of blood flow. This condition could lead to a potential decrease of dialysis efficacy and a raised risk of thrombosis of both the central vein and the efferent vein of the AVF.The pathological pathway that leads to AVF dysfunction after CIED implantation may involve the irritating actions of the CIED and their leads to the vascular wall in HD patients that are more prone to show previous vascular diseases.The aim of this review is to focus the physiopathology of the CIED-induced AVF dysfunction, the current treatment strategies and the novel perspectives that could be taken into consideration and offered to the HD population to preserve both their AVF and their quality of life.

Percutaneous management of superior vena cava syndrome in patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices

BACKGROUND

There is no consensus regarding the optimal management of cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED)-related superior vena cava (SVC) syndrome.

OBJECTIVE

We report our experience with transvenous lead extractions (TLEs) in the setting of symptomatic CIED-related SVC syndrome.

METHODS

We reviewed all TLEs performed at a high-volume center over a 14-year period and identified patients in which TLE was performed for symptomatic SVC syndrome. Patient characteristics, extraction details, percutaneous management of SVC occlusions, and clinical follow up data were analyzed.

RESULTS

Over a 14-year period, more than 1600 TLEs were performed. Of these, 16 patients underwent TLE for symptomatic SVC syndrome. The mean age was 53.1 ± 12.8 years, and 9 (56.3%) were men. Thirty-seven leads, with a mean dwell time of 5.8 years (range 2-12 years), were extracted. After extraction, 6 patients (37.5%) received an SVC stent. Balloon angioplasty was performed before stenting in 5 cases (31.3%). There was 1 major complication (6.3%) due to an SVC tear that was managed surgically with a favorable outcome. Eleven patients underwent reimplantation of a CIED. Over a median follow-up of 5.5 years (interquartile range 2.0-8.5 years), 12 patients (75%) remained free of symptoms.

CONCLUSION

Combining TLE with the percutaneous treatment of symptomatic SVC syndrome is a safe and viable treatment strategy.

Endovascular treatments of tunneled central venous catheter-induced superior vena cava complete occlusion via through-and-through technique

BACKGROUND

Superior vena cava occlusion (SVCO) induced by tunneled central venous catheter (tCVC) is an uncommon but challenging complication of hemodialysis patients. The aim of this study was to access the efficacy, safety, and patency of stents in tCVC-related SVCO via through-and-through technique.

METHOD

We retrospectively identified seven patients with benign SVCO secondary to tCVC treated with endovascular approaches successfully between 1 March 2013 and 31 October 2019. Patients' demographic data, clinical signs and symptoms, and imaging data were followed up and recorded.

RESULTS

Technical success was achieved in all cases. All the patients were performed with percutaneous transcatheter angioplasty (PTA) and subsequently stent placement via the through-and-through technique. During follow-up, four patients underwent secondary interventions, including PTA and/or stent placement. The primary patency after 3, 6, 9 and 12 months was 100%, 100%, 86% and 86%, and secondary patency after 12 months was 100%. No procedure-related deaths occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Endovascular management of SVCO is a safe and effective approach. CT examination can provide a direction for endovascular treatment and periodic surveillance.

Lead-related superior vena cava syndrome: Management and outcomes

BACKGROUND

Superior vena cava (SVC) syndrome includes the clinical sequalae of facial and bilateral upper extremity edema, dizziness, and occasional syncope. Historically, most cases have been associated with malignancy and treatment is palliative. However, cardiac device leads have been identified as important nonmalignant causes of this syndrome. There are little data on the effectiveness of venoplasty and lead extraction in the management of these patients.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to report the findings associated with the use of balloon angioplasty and lead extraction in the management of 17 patients with lead induced SVC syndrome.

METHODS

Data collected from January 2003 to July 2019 identified 17 cases of SVC syndrome at our tertiary center. Their outcomes were compared to a control group of patients without SVC syndrome. A P value of <.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Of the 17 patients, 13 (76%) underwent transvenous lead extraction and venoplasty. Three patients (18%) were treated with venoplasty alone, and 1 patient (6%) underwent surgical SVC reconstruction. In 10 patients (59%), transvenous reimplantation was necessary. Symptom resolution was achieved in all 17 patients and confirmed at both 6 and 12 months' follow-up. There was no significant difference in the rate of complications associated with transvenous lead extraction for SVC syndrome vs control.

CONCLUSION

In patients with SVC syndrome, venoplasty and lead extraction are safe and effective for resolution of symptoms and maintaining SVC patency.

Chronic Kidney Disease in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Device Placement: Results of a Retrospective Study

Background

Cardiovascular issues (especially arrhythmia and sudden cardiac death) are one of the most common causes of mortality in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). To minimize cardiac mortality, these patients frequently require various cardiac devices, such as pacemakers, loop recorders, and defibrillators which can compromise their vascular access. In this study, we aim to determine the prevalence of CKD in patients undergoing cardiac device placement and their progression of CKD.

Methods

Institutional review board approval was obtained for this study. A total of 688 patients undergoing cardiac device placement were included in this study over a 3-year period at Jersey Shore University Medical Center. Demographic characteristics, comorbidities, base-line renal functions during the procedure, types of cardiac devices, sites of vascular access and follow-up renal function when available were assessed retrospectively. Patients were categorized into CKD stages 1 - 5 based on the National Kidney Foundation-Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative (NKF-KDOQI) guidelines. The patients who were already on hemodialysis were excluded in this study.

Results

The average age of the patient were 73.9 years with male predominance (60%). A total of 227 patients (33%) had estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) < 60 mL/min consistent with the evidence of advanced-stage CKD (stages 3 - 5) at the time of cardiac device placement. The most common types of device placements were new insertion/replacement of atrial and ventricular leads (39.5%), loop recorder implantation (21.1%) and generator changes on an already implanted device (11%). Only 4% (28/688) had a leadless cardiac device placement. The most common access sites were subclavian (47.1%), axillary (32.3%) and femoral (12.2%).

Conclusions

The present study demonstrated that nearly one-third of the patient undergoing cardiac device placement had an advanced degree of renal failure. Because CKD is a progressive disease, many of these patients might require renal replacement therapy in the future. Transvenous devices is not a good choice in this group of patients as they will ultimately require an arteriovenous fistula. Subcutaneous leadless cardiac device insertion might be a better option in patients with advanced CKD.

[Thoracic Central Venous Occlusive Disease and Haemodialysis Access]

Benign central venous thoracic occlusion is a frequent issue in haemodialysis patients. Symptomatic stenosis affects quality of life and can cause dysfunction of arteriovenous access or make it impossible to implant a haemodialysis catheter. Common risk factors for the development of the occlusions are central venous catheters and cardiac rhythm devices. The gold standard for diagnosis is venous angiography. Treatment of asymptomatic lesions can lead to clinical deterioration and should be avoided. The primary method of treatment for symptomatic patients is endovascular therapy. Repeat balloon angioplasty is a standard therapy. In case of elastic recoiling or early recurrence, placement of bare metal stent or stent graft could be considered. Surgical options should be preserved only for refractory cases. Further randomised trials are needed to prove the efficacy of new devices, such as dedicated venous stents and drug coated balloons.

Pulsatile tinnitus as a presenting symptom of central venous stenosis secondary to an ipsilateral upper arm arteriovenous PTFE graft

A 51-year-old man presented with a swollen left arm and unilateral pulsatile tinnitus 2 weeks after a left upper arm polytetrafluoroethylene graft was created for haemodialysis access. A fistulogram of the left upper arm showed a central venous stenosis and significant retrograde flow up the left internal jugular vein. Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty was attempted unsuccessfully and fistula ligation was subsequently performed. This led to immediate resolution of the tinnitus. The venous stenosis was likely secondary to a cardiac resynchronisation therapy defibrillator, which had been removed 1 year previously. Central venous stenosis is a common but often asymptomatic complication of a cardiac device, with the exception of patients with upper extremity arteriovenous fistulas, who frequently develop symptomatic venous hypertension. This generally presents with ipsilateral arm swelling and/or high venous pressures during dialysis. To our knowledge, this is the first report of pulsatile tinnitus arising in this context.

Hybrid venous recanalization and cardiac implantable electronic device lead revision procedures: A single-center retrospective analysis of 38 patients

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to describe the safety and efficacy of hybrid recanalization procedures in a series of patients with obstructed central veins requiring cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) revision.

METHODS

Between 2008 and 2016, 38 consecutive patients (24 M; age 60.5 ± 16.2 years; range 25-87 years) with central venous obstruction underwent 42 recanalization interventions performed in conjunction with CIED revision or extraction. Fifty percent of patients (19/38) presented with veno-occlusive symptoms, and 13% (5/38) of patients had CIED leads with an ipsilateral upper extremity dialysis conduit.

RESULTS

Ninety-one percent (38/42) of all procedures resulted in successful recanalization and CIED revision. Twenty-four percent (9/38) of all patients required secondary procedures due to recurrent stenosis, and 78% (7/9) of those requiring secondary procedures had indwelling dialysis conduits and/or clinical symptoms related to venous occlusion before the initial procedure. There were complications in 2 patients related to recanalization, and in 3 related to CIED revision.

CONCLUSIONS

Recanalization of central venous stenosis/occlusion in patients with CIED can be technically challenging but is successful in most patients. Symptomatic patients and those with dialysis conduits often require more aggressive revascularization interventions and may be at increased risk of complication or need for secondary interventions.

Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators in Patients with ESRD: Complications, Management, and Literature Review

Background:

Cardiovascular diseases are the leading cause of death among dialysis pa-tients, accounting for about 40% of all their mortalities. Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is culpable for 37.5% of all deaths among patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) should be considered in dialysis patients for the primary or secondary preven-tion of SCD. Recent studies on the implementation of ICD/cardiac resynchronization therapy do not exclude patients with ESRD; however, individualized decisions should be made in this group of pa-tients. A thorough evaluation of the benefits of ICD implementation in patients with ESRD requires several large-scale mortality studies to compare and follow up patients with ESRD with and without ICDs. In the present study, we sought to determine and clarify the complications associated with ICD implementation and management thereof in patients suffering from ESRD.

Methods:

To assess the complications allied to the implementation of ICDs and their management in patients with ESRD, we reviewed available related articles in the literature.

Results and Conclusions:

ICD implementation in dialysis patients has several complications, which has limited its usage. Based on our literature review, the complications of ICD implementation can be categorized as follows: (1) Related to implantation procedures, hematoma, and pneumothorax; (2) Re-lated to the device/lead such as lead fracture and lead dislodgment; (3) Infection; and (4) Central vein thrombosis. Hence, the management of the complications of ICDs in this specific group of patients is of vital importance.

Treatment of superior vena cava syndrome with kissing brachiocephalic stents and exchange of pacemaker leads

Superior vena cava syndrome is an uncommon but challenging complication of patients undergoing hemodialysis through upper extremity access as well as of patients with indwelling pacemakers. This case report and Video demonstrate the multidisciplinary management of a complex patient with hemodialysis access and indwelling pacemaker for whom multiple attempts at balloon angioplasty for superior vena cava syndrome failed. A joint procedure between vascular surgery and cardiac electrophysiology teams was performed to exchange the pacemaker leads and to place bilateral kissing stents in the brachiocephalic veins. The patient tolerated the procedure well and had no recurrence of symptoms.

Central Venous Stenosis after Hemodialysis: Case Reports and Relationships to Catheters and Cardiac Implantable Devices

The appropriate vascular access for hemodialysis in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) is undefined. We describe two cases of end-stage renal disease patients with CIED and tunneled central venous catheter (CVC) who developed venous cava stenosis: (1) a 70-year-old man with sinus node disease and pacemaker in 2013, CVC, and a Brescia-Cimino forearm fistula in 2015; (2) a 75-year-old woman with previous ventricular arrhythmia with implanted defibrillator in 2014 and CVC in 2016. In either case, after about 1 year from CVC insertion, patients developed superior vena cava (SVC) syndrome due to stenosis diagnosed by axial computerized tomography. In case 1, the patient was not treated by angioplasty of SVC and removed CVC with partial resolving of symptoms. In case 2, a percutaneous transluminal angioplasty with placement of a new CVC was required. To analyze these reports in the context of available literature, we systematically reviewed studies that have analyzed the presence of central venous stenosis associated with the simultaneous presence of CIED and CVC. Five studies were found; two indicated an increased incidence of central venous stenosis, while three did not find any association. While more studies are definitely needed, we suggest that these patients may benefit from epicardial cardiac devices and the insertion of devices directly into the ventriculus. If the new devices are unavailable or contraindicated, peritoneal dialysis or intensive conservative treatment in older patients may be proposed as alternative options.

Impact of transvenous cardiac implantable electronic devices in chronic hemodialysis patients: a single-center, observational comparative study

Background

We investigated the impact of a transvenous cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) placement on outcomes and arteriovenous vascular access (VA) patency among chronic hemodialysis patients.

Methods

This is a single-center, observational comparative study between chronic hemodialysis patients with ipsilateral and contralateral CIED and VA. Forty-two consecutive patients who underwent both CIED placement and upper-extremity VA for hemodialysis, regardless of the sequence and time interval between these 2 procedures, were identified between January 2001 and December 2017. Patients with ipsilateral (n = 22, 52%, the ipsilateral group) and contralateral (n = 20, 48%, the contralateral group) CIED and VA were compared retrospectively; the primary outcome was any-cause mortality and cardiac mortality or the composite of any systemic complications, defined as central venous stenosis or occlusion, any device infections or tricuspid regurgitation; the secondary outcome was CIED or VA malfunction.

Results

During the median follow-up period of 101 months, primary outcome incidence was significantly higher in the ipsilateral group than the contralateral group (73% vs 40%, P = 0.03), although the incidences of any-cause mortality (P = 0.28) and cardiac mortality (P > 0.99) were similar between the groups. Secondary outcome incidence did not differ significantly between the 2 groups (55% vs 30%, P = 0.36). Kaplan–Meier survival analysis revealed similar primary and secondary VA patency rates in both groups. On subgroup analysis, patients with upper arm VA had similar primary and secondary patency to those with forearm VA.

Conclusions

Despite some notable limitations of the study, the retrospective study design and small sample size, we found that the any-cause mortality incidence and VA patency did not differ between the 2 groups, but primary outcome incidence was significantly higher among patients with ipsilateral CIED and VA.

Cardiac implantable electronic device and vascular access: Strategies to overcome problems

For arrhythmia treatment or sudden cardiac death prevention in hemodialysis patients, there is a frequent need for placement of a cardiac implantable electronic device (pacemaker, implantable cardioverter defibrillator, or cardiac resynchronization device). Leads from a cardiac implantable electronic device can cause central vein stenosis and carry the risk of tricuspid regurgitation or contribute to infective endocarditis. In patients with end-stage kidney disease requiring vascular access and cardiac implantable electronic device, the best strategy is to create an arteriovenous fistula on the contralateral upper limb for a cardiac implantable electronic device and avoidance of central vein catheter. Fortunately, cardiac electrotherapy is moving toward miniaturization and less transvenous wires. Whenever feasible, one should avoid transvenous leads and choose alternative options such as subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator, epicardial leads, and leadless pacemaker. Based on recent reports on the leadless pacemaker/implantable cardioverter defibrillator effectiveness, in patients with rapid progression of chronic kidney disease (high risk of renal failure) or glomerular filtration rate <20 mL/min/1.73 m², this option should be considered by the implanting cardiologist for future access protection.

Venous Hemodialysis Catheters and Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices: Avoiding a High-Risk Combination

End-stage renal disease is frequently accompanied by cardiac comorbidity that warrants treatment with a cardiovascular implantable electronic device (permanent pacemaker or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator). In the United States, chronic hemodialysis (HD) population, cardiac implantable devices are present in up to 10.5% of patients; a venous HD catheter is utilized for blood access in 18% of prevalent patients. The concomitant presence of a venous HD catheter and cardiovascular implantable device creates a high-risk circumstance, with potential for causing symptomatic central venous stenosis, and for developing complicated endovascular infection. This dangerous combination may be avoided for many patients by utilizing nondialysis methods for management of advanced chronic kidney disease, initiating dialysis without venous catheter access, or managing cardiac rhythm disorders without use of transvenous cardiac implantable electronic devices. In those situations where the combination of a venous HD catheter and cardiac implantable device is unavoidable, there are strategies to minimize duration of venous catheter access, and to reduce risks for infectious complications. It is essential for nephrologists and cardiologists to understand the indications, alternatives, and risks involved with venous HD access and cardiac implantable devices. Coordinated management of renal disease and cardiac rhythm disorders has potential to minimize risks, improve outcomes, and substantially reduce the cost of care.

Application of Hong's technique for removal of stuck hemodialysis tunneled catheter to pacemaker leads

The term “stuck catheter” refers to situations where a central venous catheter cannot be removed from the central veins or right atrium using standard technique, usually due to development of a fibrin sheath leading to adherence to SVC or right atrial wall. Endoluminal dilatation is an interventional radiology technique that has been previously reported in the removal of stuck hemodialysis catheters, and to the best of our knowledge, this case describes the first application of the technique to remove a hemodialysis catheter that was adherent to SVC wall and transvenous pacemaker leads.

The feasibility and safety of a through-and-through wire technique for central venous occlusion in dialysis patients

Background

To retrospectively compare the operation time, success rate and efficacy between unidirectional and bidirectional procedures in the treatment of central venous occlusion diseases (CVOD), assess the advantages of the bidirectional approach, and determine the characteristics of CVOD appropriate for the bidirectional approach treatment.

Methods

A total of 49 patients who underwent endovascular interventions with all relevant data between January 2011 and December 2015 at the First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China, were included in this retrospective study, and were categorized into two groups: the 19 patients in group 1 had undergone percutaneous transluminal venoplasty (PTV) via a conventional technique (unidirectional procedure from the vein distal or proximal to the obstructive lesion), and the 30 in group 2 had undergone flossing wire technique (bidirectional procedure from femoral vein and the vein distal to obstructive lesion and using a flossing wire technique). The technical success rate, the fluoroscopy time in the procedure, perioperative complications, and patency were evaluated retrospectively.

Results

Compared with group 1, group 2 had a higher initial technical success rate (83.33% vs. 47.36%, p = 0.012) but a shorter fluoroscopy time (82.6 ± 26.1 vs. 116.1 ± 42.1, p = 0.048). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis indicated that a lesion with a length of 6.5 cm was the best predictor of technique success (p = 0.02) in group 1, but no cut-off value was identified for group 2. There were no significant differences in perioperative complications between these two groups. The complication rates were 31.58% (6/19) in group 1 and 6.67% (2/30) in group 2, (p = 0.043), respectively. No significant difference was observed between these two groups with respect to the stent patency rate.

Conclusion

Compared with the conventional technique, the flossing wire technique has a higher success rate, shorter fluoroscopy time, fewer complications and similar patency rate. It is a feasible treatment for CVOD, especially for long obstructive lesions.

Endovascular interventions for central vein stenosis

Central vein stenosis is common because of the placement of venous access and cardiac intravascular devices and compromises vascular access for dialysis. Endovascular intervention with angioplasty and/or stent placement is the preferred approach, but the results are suboptimal and limited. Primary patency after angioplasty alone is poor, but secondary patency can be maintained with repeated angioplasty. Stent placement is recommended for quick recurrence or elastic recoil of stenosis. Primary patency of stents is also poor, though covered stents have recently shown better patency than bare metal stents. Secondary patency requires repeated intervention. Recanalization of occluded central veins is tedious and not always successful. Placement of hybrid graft-catheter with a combined endovascular surgical approach can maintain patency in many cases. In the presence of debilitating symptoms, palliative approach with endovascular banding or occlusion of the access may be necessary. Prevention of central vein stenosis is the most desirable strategy.

The Role of Endovascular Stents in Dialysis Access Maintenance

Vascular stenosis is most often the culprit behind hemodialysis vascular access dysfunction, and although percutaneous transluminal angioplasty remains the gold standard treatment for vascular stenosis, over the past decade the use of stents as a treatment option has been on the rise. Aside from the 2 Food and Drug Administration-approved stent grafts for the treatment of venous graft anastomosis stenosis, use of all other stents in vascular access dysfunction is off-label. Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative recommends limiting stent use to specific conditions, such as elastic lesions and recurrent stenosis; otherwise, additional adapted indications are in procedure-related complications, such as grade 2 and 3 hematomas. Published reports have shown the potential use of stents in a variety of conditions leading to vascular access dysfunction, such as venous graft anastomosis stenosis, cephalic arch stenosis, central venous stenosis, dialysis access aneurysmal elimination, cardiac implantable electronic device-induced stenosis, and thrombosed arteriovenous grafts. Although further research is needed for many of these conditions, evidence for recommendations has been clear in some; for instance, we know now that stents should be avoided along cannulation sites and should not be used in eliminating dialysis access aneurysms. In this review article, we evaluate the available evidence for the use of stents in each of the aforementioned conditions leading to hemodialysis vascular access dysfunctions.

Cardiovascular implantable electronic devices in hemodialysis patients: prevalence and implications for arteriovenous hemodialysis access interventions

Cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are frequently utilized in hemodialysis patients. CIED leads are typically implanted via the subclavian vein resulting in stenosis and venous hypertension. We studied 1235 chronic hemodialysis patients under the care of our nephrology practice. For each, we determined the presence of a CIED, indication for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD), and type of hemodialysis access. Records were reviewed to identify all interventions performed on the access circuit and the central veins specifically. A CIED was present in 129 patients (10.5%), including ICDs in 75 (6.1%) and pacemakers in 54 (4.4%). The access circuit intervention rate was 1.48/access year (AY) and was similar when a CIED was ipsilateral (1.53/AY) or contralateral (1.44/AY) to arteriovenous access (p = 0.477). The rate of central venous interventions was greater in the ipsilateral (0.59/AY) versus contralateral group (0.28/AY), (p < 0.001). Fifty-four of 59 patients with ipsilateral access and CIED required <2 interventions per AY, but six failed angioplasty and required access ligation. None had superior vena cava stenosis requiring intervention. We conclude that there is a high prevalence of CIEDs in our HD patients. Ipsilateral CIED and arteriovenous access results in higher central venous intervention rates compared with contralateral cases; overall access circuit intervention rates are similar.