ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: The increased use of central venous access primarily for hemodialysis has led to a significant increase in clinically relevant central venous occlusive disease (CVOD). The magnitude of and the optimal therapy for CVOD are not clearly established. The purpose of this study is to define the problem of CVOD and determine the success of percutaneous therapy for relieving symptoms and maintaining central venous patency. METHODS: Patients presenting with disabling upper-extremity edema suggestive of central venous stenosis or occlusion during a 3-year period were evaluated by venography of the upper extremity and central veins. Percutaneous venous angioplasty (PTA) and/or stent placement was performed as clinically indicated. The success of therapy was assessed, and the patients were observed to determine the incidence of recurrence and additional procedures. Recurrent lesions underwent similar evaluation and treatment. RESULTS: A total of 32 sides were treated in 29 patients with a mean of 1.9 interventions per side treated. Hemodialysis-related lesions were the underlying cause in 87% with the remaining 13% related to previous central venous catheterization. The lesions involved the axillary, subclavian, and innominate veins with complete venous occlusion in six (19%) cases. Percutaneous angioplasty was followed by stent placement in six (19%) cases. The procedure was a technical success and was performed without complications in all cases (100%). Mean follow-up was 16.5 months (range, 4-36 months). On average, patient symptoms were controlled for 6.5 months after the initial intervention. Recurrent edema led to additional PTA in 20 (63%) cases. Fifty percent (n = 14) of patients with an arteriovenous fistula (AVF) experienced recurrent symptoms after initial and/or repeat PTA and required AVF ligation. Complete resolution after the initial PTA was predictive of long-term success. CONCLUSIONS: Central venous occlusive disease has emerged as a significant clinical problem. Percutaneous venous angioplasty can provide temporary symptomatic relief; however, multiple procedures are often required and long-term relief is rarely achieved.
Subject(s)
Catheterization, Central Venous/adverse effects , Catheterization/methods , Peripheral Vascular Diseases/therapy , Veins/pathology , Venous Insufficiency/therapy , Aged , Constriction, Pathologic/diagnostic imaging , Constriction, Pathologic/etiology , Constriction, Pathologic/therapy , Edema/etiology , Female , Humans , Male , Peripheral Vascular Diseases/diagnosis , Peripheral Vascular Diseases/etiology , Phlebography , Recurrence , Renal Dialysis/instrumentation , Retrospective Studies , Stents , Upper Extremity , Vascular Patency , Venous Insufficiency/diagnostic imaging , Venous Insufficiency/etiologyABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Accurate diameter measurements of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) with both computed tomography (CT) and ultrasound (US) are essential for screening, planning surgical intervention, and follow-up after endovascular repair. Often there is a discrepancy between measurements obtained with CT and US, and neither limit of agreement (LOA) nor correlation between the two imaging methods has been clearly established. The purpose of this study was to assess the paired differences in AAA diameter measurements obtained with CT and US in a large national endograft trial. METHODS: CT and US measurements were obtained from an independent core laboratory established to assess imaging data in a national endograft trial (Ancure; Guidant, Menlo Park, Calif). The study included only baseline examinations in which both CT and US measurements were available. Axial CT images and transverse US images were assessed for maximal AAA diameter and recorded as CT(max) and US(max), respectively. Correlations and LOA were performed between all image diameters, and differences in their means were assessed with paired t test. RESULTS: A total of 334 concurrent measurements were available at baseline after endovascular repair. CT(max) was greater than US(max) in 95% (n = 312), and mean CT(max) (5.69 +/- 0.89 cm) was significantly larger (P <.001) than mean US(max) (4.74 +/- 0.91 cm). The correlation coefficient between CT(max) and US(max) was 0.705, but the difference between the two was less than 1.0 cm in only 51%. There was less discrepancy between CT(max) and US(max) for small AAA (0.7 cm, 15.3%) compared with medium (0.9 cm, 17.9%) and large (1.46 cm, 20.3%) AAA; however, the difference was not statistically significant. LOA between CT(max) and US(max) (-0.45-2.36 cm) exceeded the limits of clinical acceptability (-0.5-0.5 cm). Poor LOA was also found in each subgroup based on AAA size. CONCLUSIONS: Maximal AAA diameter measured with CT is significantly and consistently larger than maximal AAA diameter measured with US. The clinical significance of this difference and its cause remains a subject for further investigation.
