An Uncoventional Technique: Outflow Vein Tributary access for Central Vein and Cephalic Arch Angioplasty in Dysfunctional AVF

Abstract

Abstract Introduction: Central venous stenosis (CVS) is a significant and frequently encountered problem in managing hemodialysis (HD) patients. Venous hypertension, often accompanied by severe symptoms, undermines the integrity of the HD access circuit. In CVS, dialysis through an arteriovenous (AV) fistula is usually inefficient, with high recirculation rates and prolonged bleeding after dialysis. Interventions for central vein stenosis in patients with AV access are typically performed with a direct puncture of the fistula outflow vein or taking access from the femoral vein, jugular vein, axillary vein, and basilic vein. Commonly encountered complications with taking access from the fistula vein-puncture site bleeding, hematoma, pseudoaneurysm, thrombosis of arteriovenous fistula; complications noted with femoral vein access are groin hematoma, lower limb deep-vein thrombosis, need for patient immobilization, and groin compression. An alternative approach is to use the outflow vein tributary, such as the cephalic vein tributary, as an access to avoid these potential complications. Aim and Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and clinical outcomes of central vein and cephalic vein arch angioplasty, utilizing an outflow vein tributary as access, for managing symptomatic CVS in dialysis patients with upper limb vascular access and significant ipsilateral limb edema. Methodology: In a Prospective interventional study conducted at 2 Tertiary care Institutes between 2022 and 2023, a total of 34 patients underwent central vein and cephalic arch angioplasty utilizing an outflow vein tributary as access. Follow-up duration varied among patients. Results: During a 1-year period, a total of 34 patients (20 male and 14 female) underwent interventions for central vein stenosis using a tributary of the outflow vein as an access. These interventions encompassed lesions in the SVC, innominate vein, subclavian vein, cephalic arch, and multisegmental disease. The technical success rate for endovascular treatment stood at 88%. However, in four patients, we encountered difficulties in crossing the lesion despite employing additional access from the great saphenous vein (GSV). Notably, in 23 cases, the entire procedure was successfully completed using access from the tributary vein, whereas in seven patients, supplementary access was obtained from the right GSV. Importantly, none of the patients experienced access site complications. Conclusion: The use of tributary veins as access allows for the use of wide bore sheaths without encountering complications when addressing central vein pathology. Our findings indicate that employing outflow vein tributaries as access for endovascular treatment is both safe and effective in managing central venous disease.