Left innominate vein creation using left internal jugular vein tunneled to right internal jugular vein.

BACKGROUND: Left innominate vein occlusion is a known complication of pacemaker and central venous catheter placement. For dialysis-dependent patients with an arteriovenous fistula (AVF), this can prevent successful hemodialysis and may require surgical intervention. CASE REPORT: An 8-month-old male was diagnosed with hemolytic uremic syndrome and became dialysis-dependent at 11 months of age. After multiple vascular access and peritoneal dialysis complications, the patient had construction of a brachiobasalic AVF in his left arm at 13 years old. While waiting for the AVF to mature, an attempt to remove a previously placed left subclavian vein port-a-cath was unsuccessful and a follow-up imaging revealed that the vessel had become occluded. The fistula remained patent, but due to arm swelling and venous obstruction, his fistula was not accessible. Multiple attempts to percutaneously cross the left innominate vein were unsuccessful and the patient was referred for surgical intervention. At 15 years old, the patient was taken to the operating room for transposition of the left internal jugular vein (LIJ) to the right internal jugular vein (RIJ). The LIJ was transected under the mandible and anastomosed to the RIJ. Subsequently the patient underwent VWING insertion rather than venous transposition for constant site dialysis. Although he has required frequent transcatheter dilation of the LIJ-RIJ anastomosis, the patient was successfully dialyzed using this fistula for 5 years. The patient received a cadaveric renal transplant at 5 years 20 days. CONCLUSIONS: In cases of left innominate vein stenosis, transposing the LIJ can create a new left innominate vein that can alleviate venous hypertension and preserve fistula function. This procedure avoids sternotomy and only requires one anastomosis.

Cost-Effectiveness of Pharmacomechanical Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis Versus Standard Anticoagulation in Patients With Proximal Deep Vein Thrombosis: Results From the ATTRACT Trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients with acute deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pharmacomechanical catheter-directed thrombolysis (PCDT) in conjunction with anticoagulation therapy is increasingly used with the goal of preventing postthrombotic syndrome. Long-term costs and cost-effectiveness of these 2 treatment strategies from the perspective of the US healthcare system have not been compared. METHODS AND RESULTS: Between 2009 and 2014, the ATTRACT trial (Acute Venous Thrombosis: Thrombus Removal With Adjunctive Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis) randomized 692 patients with acute proximal DVT to PCDT plus anticoagulation (n=337) or standard treatment with anticoagulation alone (n=355). Costs (2017 US dollars) were assessed over a 24-month follow-up period using a combination of resource-based costing, hospital bills, Medicare reimbursement rates, and the Drug Topics Red Book. Health state utilities were obtained from the Short Form-36. In-trial results and US life tables were used to develop a Markov cohort model to evaluate lifetime cost-effectiveness. For the PCDT group, mean costs of the initial procedure were $13 600; per-patient costs associated with the index hospitalization were $21 509 for PCDT and $3877 for standard care (difference=$17 632; 95% CI, $16 117-$19 243). The 24-month difference in costs was $20 045 (95% CI, $16 093-$24 120). Utility scores increased significantly between baseline and 6 months for both groups, with no significant differences between groups at any follow-up time point. Projected differences in lifetime costs of $16 740 and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of 0.08, yield an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for PCDT of $222 041/QALY gained. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the probability that PCDT would achieve a lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$50 000/QALY or <$150 000/QALY was 1% and 25%, respectively. For iliofemoral DVT, QALY gains with PCDT were greater, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $137 526/QALY; for femoral-popliteal DVT, standard therapy was an economically dominant strategy. CONCLUSIONS: With an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio >$200 000/QALY gained, PCDT is not an economically attractive treatment for proximal DVT. PCDT may be of intermediate value in patients with iliofemoral DVT. Clinical Trial Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00790335.

Endovascular Stenting of Portal Vein for Graft Rescue after a Pancreas Transplant Venous Graft Thrombosis: A Case Report.

Venous thrombosis of pancreas transplant allografts often leads to graft loss. It is an worrisome complication and difficult to treat, forming the most common nonimmunological cause of graft loss. Multiple risk factors have been implicated in the development of venous thrombosis of pancreas transplant. Color Doppler ultrasonography enables early diagnosis of venous thrombosis, thus increasing the possibility of graft-rescue treatments. Endovascular management of pancreatic transplant vascular complications is scant and in the form of case reports. We report a case of early detection of pancreatic graft venous thrombosis that was treated successfully by catheter-directed thrombolysis mechanical thrombectomy, percutaneous transluminal angioplasty, and stenting of portal vein.

Surgical and endovascular treatment of hepatic arterial complications following liver transplant.

Vascular complications after liver transplantation increase post-operative morbidity and contribute to the incidence of retransplantation. Vascular complications comprise arterial, caval, and portal venous pathology, with the majority of complications being arterial in etiology, including anastomotic stricture, pseudoaneurysm, and thrombosis. There are two major therapeutic options for the treatment of these arterial complications: endovascular intervention and surgery. The former includes intra-arterial thrombolysis, embolization, percutaneous transluminal angioplasty, and stent placement. The latter includes thrombectomy, reanastomosis, and retransplantation. Although surgical treatment has been considered the first choice for management in the past, advances in endovascular intervention have increased and make it a viable therapeutic option following orthotopic liver transplantation. This review focuses on the role of surgical and endovascular therapy in the management of hepatic arterial complications after liver transplantation.