Single-Center Retrospective Review of Radiofrequency Wire Recanalization of Refractory Central Venous Occlusions.

PURPOSE: To retrospectively review the effectiveness and safety of radiofrequency (RF) wire recanalization of refractory central venous occlusions (CVOs) and compare recurrent and nonrecurrent CVOs in terms of patient and occlusion characteristics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty CVOs were treated in 18 patients (age 40 y ± 13; 9 women) with 11 superior vena cava (SVC) or brachiocephalic vein occlusions (ie, supradiaphragmatic) and 9 inferior vena cava or iliac vein occlusions (ie, infradiaphragmatic). Indications included pain, edema, ulceration, and/or dialysis arteriovenous fistula dysfunction peripheral to the CVO(s). All patients had multiple venous thrombotic risk factors, including mechanical venous compression, endothelial injury, and/or coagulopathies. CVO traversal was first attempted with standard and advanced techniques before RF wire recanalization and followed up with computed tomographic venography and clinic visits approximately 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after treatment. RESULTS: Sixteen CVOs (80%) were successfully transversed and associated with symptom relief. One major complication occurred involving SVC perforation into the pericardial space. Primary CVO patency rate was 56% at a median follow-up of 14.1 months (interquartile range [IQR], 9.2-20.0 mo). Recurrent CVOs tended to be infradiaphragmatic (71% vs 12% for supradiaphragmatic; P = .02), longer (12.9 cm ± 10.0 vs 2.3 cm ± 1.3; P < .01), and associated with implanted venous stents, filters, or cardiac pacer/defibrillator leads (86% vs 22%; P = .01). Median time to restenosis/occlusion was 1.5 months (IQR, 1.1-6.1 mo). CONCLUSIONS: RF wire recanalization is a relatively effective and safe option for refractory CVOs. Patients with longer, infradiaphragmatic CVOs associated with indwelling devices may require closer follow-up for CVO recurrence.

Asymmetric spermatic cord vessel enhancement on CT: a sign of epididymitis or testicular neoplasm.

PURPOSE: To determine whether asymmetric spermatic cord vessel enhancement (ASE) on contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) indicates scrotal pathology. METHODS: Sixty-one male patients with scrotal symptoms who underwent both scrotal ultrasound (US) and CECT within 24 h were identified through a radiology information system. Twenty-eight emergency department patients who underwent CECT only for unrelated symptoms were included for comparison. Two blinded radiologists independently reviewed each CECT scan for qualitative ASE. These data were compared with US diagnoses, when present. A third blinded radiologist reviewed each CECT scan for quantitative ASE by measuring Hounsfield unit (HU) density ratios. McNemar, Kappa, Student's t test, and ANOVA were used for analysis. RESULTS: Eighty-nine total patients included 28 with CECT only and 61 with CECT and US, of which 41 had abnormal US: 15 acute epididymitis and/or orchitis, 7 testicular neoplasms, 11 varicoceles, and 8 with other pathologies. Twenty patients with normal US and 28 patients with CECT only served as control groups. Identification of ASE agreed with US diagnosis of epididymitis (and/or orchitis) or testicular neoplasm (reader 1: κ = 0.79, reader 2: κ = 0.75) with average 95.5% sensitivity and 88.8% specificity, and no significant difference between readers (p = 0.58). For epididymitis (and/or orchitis) or testicular neoplasm patients, the average ratio of spermatic cord HU density (ipsilateral:contralateral) was significantly different from other patients (4.01 vs. 1.26, p = 0.0025). CONCLUSION: ASE on CECT shows stronger correlation with epididymitis (and/or orchitis) and testicular neoplasm compared with other scrotal pathologies. If discovered on CECT, this should prompt further clinical and/or imaging workup.