Endovascular stent-based revascularization of malignant superior vena cava syndrome with concomitant implantation of a port device using a dual venous approach
The aim of this paper is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of endovascular revascularization of malignant superior vena cava syndrome (SVCS) and simultaneous implantation of a totally implantable venous access port (TIVAP) using a dual venous approach.
Materials and methods
Retrospectively, 31 patients (mean age 67 ± 8 years) with malignant CVO who had undergone revascularization by implantation of a self-expanding stent into the superior vena cava (SVC) (Sinus XL®, OptiMed, Germany; n = 11 [Group1] and Protégé ™ EverFlex, Covidien, Ireland; n = 20 [Group 2]) via a transfemoral access were identified. Simultaneously, percutaneous access via a subclavian vein was used to (a) probe the lesion from above, (b) facilitate a through-and-through maneuver, and (c) implant a TIVAP. Primary endpoints with regard to the SVC syndrome were technical (residual stenosis < 30%) and clinical (relief of symptoms) success; with regard to TIVAP implantation technical success was defined as positioning of the functional catheter within the SVC. Secondary endpoints were complications as well as stent and TIVAP patency.
Technical and clinical success rate were 100% for revascularization of the SVS and 100% for implantation of the TIVAP. One access site hematoma (minor complication, day 2) and one port-catheter-associated sepsis (major complication, day 18) were identified. Mean catheter days were 313 ± 370 days. Mean imaging follow-up was 184 ± 172 days. Estimated patency rates at 3, 6, and 12 months were 100% in Group 1 and 84, 84, and 56% in Group 2 (p = 0.338).
Stent-based revascularization of malignant SVCS with concomitant implantation of a port device using a dual venous approach appears to be safe and effective.
KeywordsMalignant superior vena cava syndrome Endovascular Stent Totally implantable venous access Dual venous approach
Compliance with ethical standards
Local ethical committee approval was granted (File number 17-044A). This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 6.Fagedet D, Thony F, Timsit JF, Rodiere M, Monnin-Bares V, Ferretti GR, Vesin A, Moro-Sibilot D (2013) Endovascular treatment of malignant superior vena cava syndrome: results and predictive factors of clinical efficacy. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 36(1):140–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-011-0310-z CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 12.Dinkel HP, Mettke B, Schmid F, Baumgartner I, Triller J, Do DD (2003) Endovascular treatment of malignant superior vena cava syndrome: is bilateral wallstent placement superior to unilateral placement? J Endovasc Ther 10(4):788–797. https://doi.org/10.1177/152660280301000416 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 13.Mokry T, Bellemann N, Sommer CM, Heussel CP, Bozorgmehr F, Gnutzmann D, Kortes NA, Kauczor HU, Radeleff B, Stampfl U (2015) 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. J Vasc Interv Radiol 26(3):357–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2014.11.019 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 17.Uberoi R, Patel R, Cox P et al (2015) CIRSE Quality assurance guidelines for superior vena cava stenting in malignant disease. https://eu-csite-storage-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/www-cirse-org/files/files/CIRSE_QA_Guidelines_for_SVC_Stenting_in_Malignant_Disease_Revision_Uberoi_2016.pdf. Accessed 28 May 2017
- 18.Duvnjak S (2011) Malignant superior vena cava syndrome: endovascular stent treatment current status. J Palliat Care Med 1:1Google Scholar
- 24.Trerotola SO, Kuhn-Fulton J, Johnson MS, Shah H, Ambrosius WT, Kneebone PH (2000) Tunneled infusion catheters: increased incidence of symptomatic venous thrombosis after subclavian versus internal jugular venous access. Radiology 217(1):89–93. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.217.1.r00oc2789 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 28.Steinberger JD, Schenning RC (2015) Endovascular reconstruction of malignant IVC and SVC obstruction. IO:111–113Google Scholar
- 29.Nagata T, Makutani S, Uchida H, Kichikawa K, Maeda M, Yoshioka T, Anai H, Sakaguchi H, Yoshimura H (2007) Follow-up results of 71 patients undergoing metallic stent placement for the treatment of a malignant obstruction of the superior vena cava. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 30(5):959–967. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-007-9088-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 31.Quaretti P, Galli F, Moramarco LP, Corti R, Leati G, Fiorina I, Tinelli C, Montagna G, Maestri M (2016) Stent grafts provided superior primary patency for central venous stenosis treatment in comparison with angioplasty and bare metal stent: a retrospective single center study on 70 hemodialysis patients. Vasc Endovasc Surg 50(4):221–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/1538574416639149 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 33.Clark K, Beecham Chick JF, Reddy SN et al (2017) Concurrent central venous stent and central venous access device placement does not compromise stent patency or catheter function in patients with malignant central venous obstruction. J Vasc Interv Radiol 28(4):602–607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2016.12.1222 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 35.Tanigawa N, Sawada S, Mishima K, Okuda Y, Mizukawa K, Ohmura N, Toita T, Ogawa K, Kobayashi M, Kobayashi M (1998) Clinical outcome of stenting in superior vena cava syndrome associated with malignant tumours. Comparison with conventional treatment. Acta Radiol 39(6):669–674. https://doi.org/10.3109/02841859809175494 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 40.Andersen PE, Midtgaard A, Brenoe AS, Elle B, Duvnjak S (2015) A new nitinol stent for use in superior cava syndrome. Initial clinical experience. J Cardiovasc Surg 56:877–881Google Scholar