Radiology · 1997
Upper extremity central venous obstruction in hemodialysis patients: treatment with Wallstents.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Vesely T M, Hovsepian D M, Pilgram T K, Coyne D W, Shenoy S
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To determine the effectiveness of using Wallstents to treat subclavian or brachiocephalic venous obstruction after unsuccessful angioplasty, in patients undergoing hemodialysis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Dialysis records, radiology reports, and procedural images of 20 hemodialysis patients who underwent Wallstent insertion into a subclavian (n = 11) or brachiocephalic (n = 9) vein were reviewed. Technical success and primary, assisted primary, and cumulative patency rates were calculated.
RESULTS: Twenty-three Wallstents were inserted for stenosis (n = 18) or occlusion (n = 2). Technical success was 100%. Eight patients underwent 11 reinterventions to maintain patency of the Wallstent during the follow-up period. Patency rates of the Wallstent were (a) primary at 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year: 90%, 67%, 42%, and 25%; (b) assisted primary at 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year: 88%, 62%, and 47%; and (c) cumulative at 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years: 89%, 64%, 56%, and 22%. Considerable shortening of the stent occurred in five patients. One occurred immediately during the deployment procedure, but four were discovered weeks to months later. No other complications occurred.
CONCLUSION: After suboptimal angioplasty, treatment of subclavian and brachiocephalic vein stenoses with a Wallstent can provide continued use of a hemodialysis access. Close clinical surveillance and multiple reinterventions are necessary to maintain Wallstent patency.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Dialysis records, radiology reports, and procedural images of 20 hemodialysis patients who underwent Wallstent insertion into a subclavian (n = 11) or brachiocephalic (n = 9) vein were reviewed. Technical success and primary, assisted primary, and cumulative patency rates were calculated.
RESULTS: Twenty-three Wallstents were inserted for stenosis (n = 18) or occlusion (n = 2). Technical success was 100%. Eight patients underwent 11 reinterventions to maintain patency of the Wallstent during the follow-up period. Patency rates of the Wallstent were (a) primary at 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year: 90%, 67%, 42%, and 25%; (b) assisted primary at 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year: 88%, 62%, and 47%; and (c) cumulative at 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years: 89%, 64%, 56%, and 22%. Considerable shortening of the stent occurred in five patients. One occurred immediately during the deployment procedure, but four were discovered weeks to months later. No other complications occurred.
CONCLUSION: After suboptimal angioplasty, treatment of subclavian and brachiocephalic vein stenoses with a Wallstent can provide continued use of a hemodialysis access. Close clinical surveillance and multiple reinterventions are necessary to maintain Wallstent patency.