Epicardial Cardiac Rhythm Devices for Dialysis Patients: Minimizing the Risk of Infection and Preserving Central Veins

Risk of infections related to endovascular catheters and cardiac implantable devices in hemodialysis patients

Patients requiring dialysis are extremely vulnerable to infectious diseases. The high burden of comorbidities and weakened immune system due to uremia and previous immunosuppressive therapy expose the patient on dialysis to more infectious events than the general population. The infectious risk is further increased by the presence of endovascular catheters and implantable cardiologic devices. The former is generally placed as urgent vascular access for dialysis and in subjects requiring hemodialysis treatments without autogenous arteriovenous fistula. The high frequency of cardiovascular events also increases the likelihood of implanting indwelling implantable cardiac devices (CIED) such as pacemakers (PMs) and defibrillators (ICDs). The simultaneous presence of CVC and CIED yields an increased risk of developing severe prosthetic device-associated bloodstream infections often progressing to septicemia. Although, antibiotic therapy is the mainstay of prosthetic device-related infections, antibiotic resistance of biofilm-residing bacteria reduces the choice of infection eradication. In these cases, the resolution of the infection process relies on the removal of the prosthetic device. Compared to CVC removal, the extraction of leads is a more complex procedure and poses an increased risk of vessel tearing. As a result, the prevention of prosthetic device-related infection is of utmost importance in hemodialysis (HD) patients and relies principally on avoiding CVC as vascular access for HD and placement of a new class of wireless implantable medical devices. When the combination of CVC and CIED is inevitable, prevention of infection, mainly due translocation of skin bacteria, should be a mandatory priority for healthcare workers.

Prevention and Risk Assessment of Cardiac Device Infections in Clinical Practice

The implantation of cardiac electronic devices (CIEDs), including pacemakers and defibrillators, has become increasingly prevalent in recent years and has been accompanied by a significant rise in cardiac device infections (CDIs), which pose a substantial clinical and economic burden. CDIs are associated with hospitalizations and prolonged antibiotic therapy and often necessitate device removal, leading to increased morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs worldwide. Approximately 1-2% of CIED implants are associated with infections, making this a critical issue to address. In this contemporary review, we discuss the burden of CDIs with their risk factors, healthcare costs, prevention strategies, and clinical management.

Do Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators Prevent Sudden Cardiac Death in End-Stage Renal Disease Patients on Dialysis?

Chronic kidney disease patients appear to be predisposed to heart rhythm disorders, including atrial fibrillation/atrial flutter, ventricular arrhythmias, and supraventricular tachycardias, which increase the risk of sudden cardiac death. The pathophysiological factors underlying arrhythmia and sudden cardiac death in patients with end-stage renal disease are unique and include timing and frequency of dialysis and dialysate composition, vulnerable myocardium, and acute proarrhythmic factors triggering asystole. The high incidence of sudden cardiac deaths suggests that this population could benefit from implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy. The introduction of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators significantly decreased the rate of all-cause mortality; however, the benefits of this therapy among patients with chronic kidney disease remain controversial since the studies provide conflicting results. Electrolyte imbalances in haemodialysis patients may result in ineffective shock therapy or the appearance of non-shockable underlying arrhythmic sudden cardiac death. Moreover, the implantation of such devices is associated with a risk of infections and central venous stenosis. Therefore, in the population of patients with heart failure and severe renal impairment, periprocedural risk and life expectancy must be considered when deciding on potential device implantation. Harmonised management of rhythm disorders and renal disease can potentially minimise risks and improve patients' outcomes and prognosis.

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.

Practical Considerations for Cardiac Electronic Devices Reimplantation Following Transvenous Lead Extraction Due to Related Endocarditis

Despite progress in implantation technology and prophylactic measures, infection complications related to cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) are still a major concern with negative impacts on patient outcomes and the health system's resources. Infective endocarditis (IE) represents one of the most threatening CIED-related infections associated with high mortality rates and requires prompt diagnosis and management. Transvenous lead extraction (TLE), combined with prolonged antibiotic therapy, has been validated as an effective approach to treat patients with CIED-related IE. Though early complete removal is undoubtedly recommended for CIED-related IE or systemic infection, device reimplantation still represents a clinical challenge in these patients at high risk of reinfection, with many gaps in the current knowledge and international guidelines. Based on the available literature data and authors' experience, this review aims to address the practical and clinical considerations regarding CIED reimplantation following lead extraction for related IE, focusing on the reassessment of CIED indication, procedure timing, and the reimplanted CIED type and site. A tailored, multidisciplinary approach involving clinical cardiologists, electrophysiologists, cardiac imaging experts, cardiac surgeons, and infectious disease specialists is crucial to optimize these patients' management and clinical outcomes.

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.

Prevention and Management of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infections: State-of-the-Art and Future Directions

Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection is an increasingly common complication of device therapy. CIED infection confers significant patient morbidity and health care expenditure, hence it is essential that clinicians recognise the contemporary strategies for predicting, reducing and treating these events. Recent technological advances-in particular, the development of antimicrobial envelopes, leadless devices and validated risk scores-present decision-makers with novel strategies for managing this expanding patient population. This review summarises the key issues facing CIED patients and their physicians, and explores the supporting evidence for the latest therapeutic developments in this field.

Prevention of cardiac implantable electronic device infections: guidelines and conventional prophylaxis

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) are potentially life-saving treatments for several cardiac conditions, but are not without risk. Despite dissemination of recommended strategies for prevention of device infections, such as administration of antibiotics before implantation, infection rates continue to rise resulting in escalating health care costs. New trials conveying important steps for better prevention of device infection and an EHRA consensus paper were recently published. This document will review the role of various preventive measures for CIED infection, emphasizing the importance of adhering to published recommendations. The document aims to provide guidance on how to prevent CIED infections in clinical practice by considering modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors that may be present pre-, peri-, and/or post-procedure.

Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices in Hemodialysis and Chronic Kidney Disease Patients-An Experience-Based Narrative Review

Cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are a standard therapy utilized for different cardiac conditions. They are implanted in a growing number of patients, including those with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). Cardiovascular diseases, including heart failure and malignant arrhythmia, remain the leading cause of mortality among CKD patients, especially in ESKD. CIED implantation procedures are considered minor surgery, typically with transvenous leads inserted via upper central veins, followed by an impulse generator introduced subcutaneously. A decision regarding optimal hemodialysis (HD) modality and the choice of permanent vascular access (VA) could be particularly challenging in CIED recipients. The potential consequences of arteriovenous access on the CIED side are related to (1) venous hypertension from lead-related central vein stenosis and (2) the risk of systemic infection. Therefore, when creating permanent vascular access, the clinical scenario may be complicated by the CIED presence on one side and the lack of suitable vessels for arteriovenous fistula on the contralateral arm. These factors suggest the need for an individualized approach according to different clinical situations: (1) CIED in a CKD patient; (2) CIED in a patient on hemodialysis CIED; and (3) VA in a patient with CIED. This complex clinical conundrum creates the necessity for close cooperation between cardiologists and nephrologists.

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.

European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) international consensus document on how to prevent, diagnose, and treat cardiac implantable electronic device infections-endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS), International Society for Cardiovascular Infectious Diseases (ISCVID), and the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS)

Pacemakers, implantable cardiac defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices are potentially lifesaving treatments for a number of cardiac conditions but are not without risk. Most concerning is the risk of a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection, which is associated with significant morbidity, increased hospitalizations, reduced survival, and increased health care costs. Recommended preventive strategies such as administration of intravenous antibiotics before implantation are well-recognized. Uncertainties have remained about the role of various preventive, diagnostic, and treatment measures such as skin antiseptics, pocket antibiotic solutions, antibacterial envelopes, prolonged antibiotics post-implantation, and others. When compared with previous guidelines or consensus statements, the present consensus document gives guidance on the use of novel device alternatives, novel oral anticoagulants, antibacterial envelopes, prolonged antibiotics post-implantation, as well as definitions on minimum quality requirements for centres and operators and volumes. The recognition that an international consensus document focused on management of CIED infections is lacking, the dissemination of results from new important randomized trials focusing on prevention of CIED infections, and observed divergences in managing device-related infections as found in an European Heart Rhythm Association worldwide survey, provided a strong incentive for a Novel 2019 International State-of-the-art Consensus document on risk assessment, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of CIED infections.

Vessel Preservation in Chronic Kidney Disease

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a major noncommunicable disorder and has become the 9th leading cause of death in the United States. Most patients with CKD in the United States choose hemodialysis as their treatment of choice. A functioning arteriovenous access is essential to reduce dependence on central venous catheters. An arteriovenous fistula (AVF), though the preferred access, has a major limitation with a high primary maturation failure rate. A functioning AVF requires well-preserved vessels, both arteries and veins, along with an acceptable cardiac pump function. Vessel preservation is crucial from a surgeon's perspective to create an AVF but is also relevant for maturation. More recently, concerns regarding the sequelae of transradial approach for percutaneous cardiac interventions have been raised. Educating and empowering the patient is the first step, but equally important is to educate all caregivers involved in providing care to a patient with advanced CKD. The current review evaluates the strategies used to preserve peripheral veins, central veins, and peripheral arteries.

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.

European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) international consensus document on how to prevent, diagnose, and treat cardiac implantable electronic device infections-endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS), International Society for Cardiovascular Infectious Diseases (ISCVID) and the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS)

Pacemakers, implantable cardiac defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices are potentially life-saving treatments for a number of cardiac conditions, but are not without risk. Most concerning is the risk of a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection, which is associated with significant morbidity, increased hospitalizations, reduced survival, and increased healthcare costs. Recommended preventive strategies such as administration of intravenous antibiotics before implantation are well recognized. Uncertainties have remained about the role of various preventive, diagnostic, and treatment measures such as skin antiseptics, pocket antibiotic solutions, anti-bacterial envelopes, prolonged antibiotics post-implantation, and others. Guidance on whether to use novel device alternatives expected to be less prone to infections and novel oral anticoagulants is also limited, as are definitions on minimum quality requirements for centres and operators and volumes. Moreover, an international consensus document on management of CIED infections is lacking. The recognition of these issues, the dissemination of results from important randomized trials focusing on prevention of CIED infections, and observed divergences in managing device-related infections as found in an European Heart Rhythm Association worldwide survey, provided a strong incentive for a 2019 International State-of-the-art Consensus document on risk assessment, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of CIED infections.

European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) international consensus document on how to prevent, diagnose, and treat cardiac implantable electronic device infections-endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS), International Society for Cardiovascular Infectious Diseases (ISCVID) and the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS)

Pacemakers, implantable cardiac defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices are potentially life-saving treatments for a number of cardiac conditions, but are not without risk. Most concerning is the risk of a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection, which is associated with significant morbidity, increased hospitalizations, reduced survival, and increased healthcare costs. Recommended preventive strategies such as administration of intravenous antibiotics before implantation are well recognized. Uncertainties have remained about the role of various preventive, diagnostic, and treatment measures such as skin antiseptics, pocket antibiotic solutions, anti-bacterial envelopes, prolonged antibiotics post-implantation, and others. Guidance on whether to use novel device alternatives expected to be less prone to infections and novel oral anticoagulants is also limited, as are definitions on minimum quality requirements for centres and operators and volumes. Moreover, an international consensus document on management of CIED infections is lacking. The recognition of these issues, the dissemination of results from important randomized trials focusing on prevention of CIED infections, and observed divergences in managing device-related infections as found in an European Heart Rhythm Association worldwide survey, provided a strong incentive for a 2019 International State-of-the-art Consensus document on risk assessment, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of CIED infections.

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.

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.

Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Device Infections

Infections associated with cardiac implantable electronic devices are increasing and are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. This article reviews the epidemiology, microbiology, and risk factors for acquisition of these infections. The complex diagnostic and management strategies associated with these serious infections are reviewed with an emphasis on recent updates and advances, as well as existing controversies. Additionally, the latest in preventative strategies are reviewed.

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.

Placement issues of hemodialysis catheters with pre-existing central lines and catheters

OBJECTIVE

It has been a widely accepted practice that a previous placed pacemaker, automatic implantable cardioverter defibrillators, or central line can be a contraindication to placing a hemodialysis catheter in the ipsilateral jugular vein. Fear of dislodging pacing wires, tunneling close to the battery site or causing venous obstruction has been a concern for surgeons and interventionalists alike. We suggest that this phobia may be unfounded.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted of patients in whom hemodialysis catheters were placed over a period of 10 years. For each hemodialysis catheter that was placed, perioperative chest X-ray performed was used to evaluate for pre-existing pacemakers and central lines. The position and laterality of placement of the hemodialysis catheter along with presence of arteriovenous fistula with functional capacity for access were noted.

RESULTS

A total of 600 hemodialysis catheters were placed in patients over the period of 10 years. The mean age of the patients was 73.6 ± 12 years with a median age of 76 years. We found 20 pacemakers or automatic implantable cardioverter defibrillators and 19 central lines on the same side of the neck as the hemodialysis catheter that was placed in the ipsilateral jugular vein. No patient exhibited malfunction or dislodgment of the central line, the pacemaker, or automatic implantable cardioverter defibrillator or evidence of upper extremity venous obstruction based upon signs symptoms or duplex exams.

CONCLUSION

Based on our experience, we suggest that placement of hemodialysis catheter in the internal jugular vein ipsilateral to the pre-existing catheter/leads is safe and spares the contralateral limb for arteriovenous fistula creation.

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.

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.

The impact of transvenous cardiac devices on vascular access patency in hemodialysis patients

Creating a vascular access in the presence of a cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) in a patient with or approaching end-stage renal disease can be challenging. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the impact of a CIED on the outcomes of vascular access creation in hemodialysis patients and determine their effects on vascular access patency. This is a single-center retrospective review of hemodialysis patients who underwent vascular access creation after CIED placement. Outcomes of vascular access creation and need for endovascular interventions were compared between patients with vascular access created ipsilateral and contralateral to the site of CIED. Comparing patients with arteriovenous (AV) access created ipsilateral to CIED placement (n=19) versus the contralateral side (n=17), the primary failure rate was 78.9% versus 35.3% (p=0.02). For AV accesses that were matured, the median primary patency durations for AV accesses created ipsilateral to the CIED was 11.2 months compared to 7.8 months for AV accesses created contralateral to the CIED (p=1.00). AV accesses created ipsilateral to a CIED have a higher primary failure rate compared with the contralateral arm and should be avoided as much as possible.

Central vein stenosis

Central vein stenosis (CVS) is commonly seen in patients receiving hemodialysis through an arteriovenous access, threatening the usability of arteriovenous access for dialysis. Subclavian and internal jugular catheters are prime reasons for the development of CVS, especially in the setting of long-term use of multiple catheters. CVS related to cardiac rhythm devices also is seen frequently. Idiopathic CVS can be encountered, although it is less common. Clinical features ultimately become sufficiently prominent to prompt angiographic evaluation. CVS should be evaluated carefully because management must be individualized. The primary method for treatment of CVS is endovascular intervention, including angioplasty and stent placement, whereas surgical options should be pursued in only refractory cases due to the invasiveness of the intervention. Early referral of patients for chronic kidney disease care; timely discussion of kidney replacement modality choices, including nonhemodialysis options such as peritoneal dialysis and kidney transplantation; placement of arteriovenous access prior to the onset of dialysis; and avoidance of catheters and other central vein instrumentation will prevent the development of CVS in most patients with kidney disease.

Vascular access sites for acute renal replacement in intensive care units

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Several temporary venous catheterizations are sometimes required for acute renal replacement therapy (RRT) in the intensive care unit (ICU). This study compares first and second catheterizations in the femoral and jugular veins in terms of patient safety.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

A crossover study from the catheter-dialysis randomized study (Cathedia), which was conducted among 736 critically ill adults requiring RRT, was performed. Catheter insertion complications, catheter-tip colonization, catheter dysfunction and urea reduction ratio (URR) were analyzed considering the crossover and longitudinal designs.

RESULTS

This study analyzed 134 patients who underwent two different sites of catheterization, 57 and 77 of whom were initially randomized in the femoral and jugular site, respectively. Using anatomic landmarks, time to insert a femoral catheter was shorter (P=0.01) and more successful (P=0.003) compared with catheterization in the jugular site. Time to catheter-tip colonization at removal was not significantly different between the two sites of insertion (median, 14 days in both groups; hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.61-1.59; P=0.96), as well as time to dysfunction. URRs were analyzed from 395 dialysis sessions (n=48 patients). No significant difference (P=0.49) in mean URR was detected between sessions performed through femoral (n=213; 50.9%) and jugular (n=182; 49.5%) dialysis catheters.

CONCLUSIONS

These results validate prior results of this study group and extend external validity to the second catheter used for RRT in the ICU. Femoral and internal jugular acute vascular access sites are both acceptable for RRT therapy in the ICU.