Retrospective Study in 23 Patients of the Self-Expanding Sinus-XL Stent for Treatment of Malignant Superior Vena Cava Obstruction Caused by Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer

Mokry, Theresa; Bellemann, Nadine; Sommer, Christof M.; Bozorgmehr, Farastuk; Gnutzmann, Daniel; Kortes, Nikolas; Kauczor, Hans Ulrich; Radeleff, Boris

doi:10.1016/j.jvir.2014.11.019

Cited by 24 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Comparisons of different clinical studies can be difficult, as there is inconsistent reporting of patient survival, clinical success, SVCS recurrence, stent type, and length of followup. However, all these studies showed high overall clinical success rates of 80%-95% with recurrence rates of 11%-28% for as long as 8 months of follow-up (8,12,21,24,25). Survival rate, technical success, clinical outcome, primary patency, and complications in the present study are all in agreement with data from the literature.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…The overall primary patency rate is between 64% and 95% (7). Covered stents show improved patency rates versus bare-metal stents, and nitinol stents show improved patency rates versus stainless-steel stents (7,8). Venous-dedicated nitinol stents have been recently introduced for the treatment of malignant SVCS in view of the greater radial force and diameter they provide, rendering them resilient to external compression (8,9).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Endovascular Treatment of Malignant Superior Vena Cava Syndrome through Upper-Limb Access: A Comparison between Venous-Dedicated and Conventional Stents

Matthaiou

Galanakis

Kehagias

et al. 2020

Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To retrospectively evaluate the technical and clinical outcomes of superior vena cava (SVC) stent placement through upperlimb venous access in malignant SVC syndrome (SVCS) and compare the efficacy of different nitinol stent types. Materials and Methods: Between 2006 and 2018, 156 patients (132 male; mean age, 62 y; age range, 33-81 y) underwent SVC stent placement for malignant obstructions through upper-limb venous access with 1 of 3 types of nitinol stent: 1 venous-dedicated (Sinus-XL stent) and 2 non-venous-dedicated (E-Luminexx Vascular Stent and Prot eg e GPS). Cases of common femoral vein access or non-nitinol stents were excluded from further analysis. The mean duration of follow-up was 8 mo. Results: Technical success was achieved in 99.3% of cases. One patient died during the procedure as a result of cardiac tamponade. Balloon predilation was performed in 10 patients and postdilation in 126. Mean procedural time was 34.4 min (range, 18-80 min). Overall survival rates were 92.3%, 57.3%, and 26.8%, and overall primary patency rates were 94.5%, 84.8% and 79.6%, at 1, 6, and 12 mo, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in primary patency rates between venous-and non-venous-dedicated stents or among different Stanford SVCS grading groups (P > .05). Conclusions: SVC stent placement through an upper-limb approach is a safe, fast, and effective technique. There is no evident benefit of venous-dedicated vs non-venous-dedicated stents in the treatment of malignant SVCS.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Endovascular Treatment of Malignant Superior Vena Cava Syndrome through Upper-Limb Access: A Comparison between Venous-Dedicated and Conventional Stents

Matthaiou

Galanakis

Kehagias

et al. 2020

Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Wei et al believe that although stents combined with targeted drugs as secondary SVCS treatment for lung cancer cannot prolong the survival of patients, they can bene t patients [13]. In this study, the success rate of stent implantation technology was 100%, and all patients' clinical symptoms were signi cantly relieved after surgery, which is similar to the results reported by Mokry, Maleux and Fagedet [14,15,16].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

Percutaneous Transluminal Stenting for Superior Vena Cava Syndrome Caused by Malignant Tumors : A Single Center Retrospective Study

Liu

Wang

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives：To evaluate the efficacy of percutaneous stent placement in the treatment of superior vena cava syndrome caused by malignant tumors.Methods：To retrospectively analyze the clinical data of 32 patients with superior vena cava syndrome who underwent percutaneous endovascular stent treatment in our department from 2015 to 2019 due to malignant tumors, and summarize the patient’s gender, age, tumor type, endovascular treatment plan, complications and postoperative follow-up.Results：All patients successfully underwent percutaneous intraluminal stent placement with digital subtraction angiography (DSA). Thirty seven endovascular stents were implanted in 32 patients, including 21 Eluminexx stents, 12 Wallstent stents, and 4 covered stents..The technical success rate was 100%, and there were no serious surgery-related complications.The remission rate of clinical symptoms was 53.1% (17 / 32) in 24 hours and 84.4% (27 / 32) in 48 hours. The follow-up period was 1.5-24 months, with an average follow-up period of 6.5 months. During the follow-up, 3 patients had re-stenosis and 1 patient had secondary thrombosis in the stent. The symptoms were relieved after the second treatment.Conclusion: For superior vena cava syndrome caused by malignant tumors, percutaneous endoluminal stent therapy can quickly and effectively relieve the clinical symptoms of patients, and the incidence of complications is low. It should be used as a first-line treatment.

show abstract

“…In our institution as in many centers, self-expanding bare-metal stents are the most common types of stents usually deployed in SVC obstructions ( 9 , 12 , 15 , 16 ). Balloon-expandable stents are not recommended because of vein diameter differences between the distal- and proximal-landing zones and the short length of stents.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Bilateral kissing self-expandable Sinus-XL Flex stents (Optimed, Ettlingen, Germany) were deployed from the left BCV vein to the SVC (a 14-mm nominal diameter and 150 mm in length) and from the right BCV to the SVC (a 14-mm nominal diameter and 100 mm in length) (Figure 2 B). The choice of stent diameters was guided by pretherapeutic data from CT with oversizing stents by up to 2-mm reference vessel diameter, in a non-involved BCV segment to help reduce delayed stent migration ( 8 , 9 ). Kissing balloon angioplasty was then performed within the stents using a 10-mm diameter balloon (Armada™ 35, Abbott Vascular, Chicago, USA) into the left-sided stent and an 8-mm diameter balloon (Armada™ 35, Abbott Vascular) into the right-sided stent (Figure 2 C).…”

Section: Case Presentationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Superior Vena Cava (SVC) Endovascular Reconstruction with Implanted Central Venous Catheter Repositioning for Treatment of Malignant SVC Obstruction

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Superior vena cava (SVC) syndrome is a group of clinical signs caused by the obstruction or compression of SVC and characterized by edema of the head, neck, and upper extremities, shortness of breath, and headaches. The syndrome may be caused by benign causes but most of the cases are caused by lung or mediastinal malignant tumors. Stenting of SVC has become widely accepted as the palliative treatment for this condition in malignant diseases, as it offers rapid relief of symptoms and improves the quality of life. Preserving previously placed central venous catheters (CVCs) is a major issue in this population. We report the case of a patient with SVC syndrome caused by tumoral obstruction due to central small-cell lung cancer who had right subclavian implanted CVC and a preferential head and neck venous drainage through the left internal jugular and brachiocephalic vein (BCV). We describe a complex procedure of SVC reconstruction with two different objectives: left recanalization and stent placement to ensure head and neck venous drainage and right BCV stenting for CVC repositioning and subsequent replacement. We also review published cases of SVC obstructions stenting with catheter repositioning. The patient experienced quick relief of symptoms after treatment. Chemotherapy was rapidly delivered through the preserved implanted CVC access. A 3-month follow-up computed tomography showed stents patency.

show abstract

Retrospective Study in 23 Patients of the Self-Expanding Sinus-XL Stent for Treatment of Malignant Superior Vena Cava Obstruction Caused by Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer

Cited by 24 publications

References 32 publications

Endovascular Treatment of Malignant Superior Vena Cava Syndrome through Upper-Limb Access: A Comparison between Venous-Dedicated and Conventional Stents

Endovascular Treatment of Malignant Superior Vena Cava Syndrome through Upper-Limb Access: A Comparison between Venous-Dedicated and Conventional Stents

Percutaneous Transluminal Stenting for Superior Vena Cava Syndrome Caused by Malignant Tumors : A Single Center Retrospective Study

Superior Vena Cava (SVC) Endovascular Reconstruction with Implanted Central Venous Catheter Repositioning for Treatment of Malignant SVC Obstruction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About