PurposeDifferent techniques have been described for stenting of venous obstructions. We report our experience with two different confluence stenting techniques to treat chronic bi-iliocaval obstructions.Materials and MethodsBetween 11/2009 and 08/2014 we treated 40 patients for chronic total bi-iliocaval obstructions. Pre-operative magnetic resonance venography showed bilateral extensive post-thrombotic scarring in common and external iliac veins as well as obstruction of the inferior vena cava (IVC). Stenting of the IVC was performed with large self-expandable stents down to the level of the iliocaval confluence. To bridge the confluence, either self-expandable stents were placed inside the IVC stent (24 patients, SECS group) or high radial force balloon-expandable stents were placed at the same level (16 patients, BECS group). In both cases, bilateral iliac extensions were performed using nitinol stents.ResultsRecanalization was achieved for all patients. In 15 (38 %) patients, a hybrid procedure with endophlebectomy and arteriovenous fistula creation needed to be performed because of significant involvement of inflow vessels below the inguinal ligament. Mean follow-up was 443 ± 438 days (range 7–1683 days). For all patients, primary, assisted-primary, and secondary patency rate at 36 months were 70, 73, and 78 %, respectively. Twelve-month patency rates in the SECS group were 85, 85, and 95 % for primary, assisted-primary, and secondary patency. In the BECS group, primary patency was 100 % during a mean follow-up period of 134 ± 118 (range 29–337) days.ConclusionStenting of chronic bi-iliocaval obstruction shows relatively high patency rates at medium follow-up. Short-term patency seems to favor confluence stenting with balloon-expandable stents.

Conventional angiography seems unreliable to identify all significant aspects of a central venous outflow obstruction. Additional use of IVUS might aid in the decision-making process and select the optimal treatment strategy.

No abstract

Chronic central vein obstructions demand stents with both high radial force and flexibility. We recommend dedicated venous stents to improve technical success and reduce stent-related complications like early re-occlusion due to fracturing, kinking or straightening.

The salvage of the catheter by means of a laparoscopic procedure or correction of a hernia is worthwhile and can save up to 81% of the catheters.

Purpose: The aim of this paper was to report our experience with arterial and venous endovascular stent placement in the thoracic outlet (TO) and review available literature. Methods: All patients that underwent arterial or venous stent placement in the TO between 2013 and 2020 in 5 Dutch vascular teaching-hospitals were retrospectively identified. Primary endpoint was symptomatic stent failure due to stenosis, chronic or posture dependent compression, fracture, or occlusion of the stent. Secondary endpoints were symptoms at last follow-up and re-interventions. For the literature review, we searched studies reporting on stenting in the TO. Results: Twenty-six patients were included with 11 arterial and 15 venous stents implanted to treat angioplasty resistant stenosis in arterial or venous TO syndrome, iatrogenic or traumatic vascular injury, radiotherapy fibrosis, or arterial dissection. Median follow-up was 19 and 14 months in the arterial and venous-group, respectively. Eight (73%) patients in the arterial, and 9 (60%) in the venous-group suffered symptomatic stent failure. Seven (64%) patients in the arterial, and 9 (60%) in the venous-group required at least 1 re-intervention. When comparing all patients with stent placement after TO decompression (TOD) to patients without, there were substantially more symptomatic stent failures and re-interventions required in the patients without TOD. Six patients (54%) in the arterial-group and 11 (73%) in the venous-group were symptom-free at last follow-up. Five articles describing 51 patients with arterial and 6 articles describing 81 patients with venous stents were included in the literature review. In the arterial-group, no TOD prior to stent placement was performed, while in the venous-group all but 1 article performed TOD prior to stent placement. Results showed comparable rates of symptomatic stent failure (24% vs 30%), and patients requiring re-interventions (29% vs 21%) between groups. Conclusion: Based on our multicenter series and review, stents in the TO have a considerable risk of failure, both in the venous and the arterial territory. Especially in patients without TOD: the need for re-interventions is high and half the patients eventually undergo TOD. Based on the currently available data, stenting in the TO should be applied cautiously while TOD should be considered.

We conclude that guidelines implementation has been successful in particular regarding issues as preoperative patient assessment for VA creation and postoperative surveillance in combination with (preemptive) endovascular intervention, leading to very acceptable VA thrombosis rates.

No abstract