Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · The Arab Journal of Interventional Radiology 2021; 5(01): 030-034
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1730121
Original Article

Central Venoplasty in Patients with Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices

Mohammed Aljarie
1   Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Department of Medical Imaging, Ministry of National Guard - Health Affairs; King Abdullah International Medical Research Center, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
,
Mohammed Alahmari
1   Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Department of Medical Imaging, Ministry of National Guard - Health Affairs; King Abdullah International Medical Research Center, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
,
Mohammad Arabi
1   Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Department of Medical Imaging, Ministry of National Guard - Health Affairs; King Abdullah International Medical Research Center, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

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.

Keywords

balloon angioplasty - dialysis - Occlusion - pacemaker - stenosis


Publication History

Article published online:
04 June 2021

© 2021. The Pan Arab Interventional Radiology Society. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd.
A-12, Second Floor, Sector -2, NOIDA -201301, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Sherk WM, Khaja MS, Good ED, Cunnane RT, Dasika NL, Williams DM. Hybrid venous recanalization and cardiac implantable electronic device lead revision procedures: a single-center retrospective analysis of 38 patients. Clin Imaging 2019; 58: 145-151
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Abu-El-Haija B, Bhave PD, Campbell DN. et al. Venous stenosis after transvenous lead placement: a study of outcomes and risk factors in 212 consecutive patients. J Am Heart Assoc 2015; 4 (08) e001878
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Oginosawa Y, Abe H, Nakashima Y. The incidence and risk factors for venous obstruction after implantation of transvenous pacing leads. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2002; 25 (11) 1605-1611
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Rozmus G, Daubert JP, Huang DT, Rosero S, Hall B, Francis C. Venous thrombosis and stenosis after implantation of pacemakers and defibrillators. J Interv Card Electrophysiol 2005; 13 (01) 9-19
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Saad TF, Hentschel DM, Koplan B. et al. ASDIN Clinical Practice Committee Workgroup. Cardiovascular implantable electronic device leads in CKD and ESRD patients: review and recommendations for practice. Semin Dial 2013; 26 (01) 114-123
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Riley RF, Petersen SE, Ferguson JD, Bashir Y. Managing superior vena cava syndrome as a complication of pacemaker implantation: a pooled analysis of clinical practice. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2010; 33 (04) 420-425
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Asif A, Salman L, Carrillo RG. et al. Patency rates for angioplasty in the treatment of pacemaker-induced central venous stenosis in hemodialysis patients: results of a multi-center study. Semin Dial 2009; 22 (06) 671-676
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Borsato GW, Rajan DK, Simons ME, Sniderman KW, Tan KT. Central venous stenosis associated with pacemaker leads: short-term results of endovascular interventions. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2012; 23 (03) 363-367
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Francis CM, Starkey IR, Errington ML, Gillespie IN. Venous stenting as treatment for pacemaker-induced superior vena cava syndrome. Am Heart J 1995; 129 (04) 836-837
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Klop B, Scheffer MG, McFadden E, Bracke F, van Gelder B.. Treatment of pacemaker-induced superior vena cava syndrome by balloon angioplasty and stenting. Neth Heart J 2011; 19 (01) 41-46
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Lindsay HS, Chennells PM, Perrins EJ. Successful treatment by balloon venoplasty and stent insertion of obstruction of the superior vena cava by an endocardial pacemaker lead. Br Heart J 1994; 71 (04) 363-365
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Saad TF, Myers GR, Cicone J. Central vein stenosis or occlusion associated with cardiac rhythm management device leads in hemodialysis patients with ipsilateral arteriovenous access: a retrospective study of treatment using stents or stent-grafts. J Vasc Access 2010; 11: 293-302
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Slonim SM, Semba CP, Sze DY, Dake MD. Placement of SVC stents over pacemaker wires for the treatment of SVC syndrome. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2000; 11 (2 Pt 1) 215-219
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Sotiriadis C, Volpi S, Douek P, Chouiter A, Muller O, Qanadli SD. Are endovascular interventions for central vein obstructions due to cardiac implanted electronic devices effective?. Front Surg 2018; 5: 49
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Teo N, Sabharwal T, Rowland E, Curry P, Adam A. Treatment of superior vena cava obstruction secondary to pacemaker wires with balloon venoplasty and insertion of metallic stents. Eur Heart J 2002; 23 (18) 1465-1470
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Fu HX, Huang XM, Zhong L. et al. Outcome and management of pacemaker-induced superior vena cava syndrome. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2014; 37 (11) 1470-1476
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar