VTOS in the Patient Requiring Chronic Hemodialysis Access
Central venous obstruction (CVO) is the most common cause of failure of Arteriovenous fistulae (AVF) and grafts (AVG) placed for dialysis access. In essentially all reports, including international consensus statements for management of such patients, all CVOs are lumped together, implicitly assuming that all should be treated first with endovascular means. We point out that while stenosis in veins surrounded by soft tissue are appropriate for endoluminal intervention, those that occur at the costoclavicular junction are identical in pathophysiology to and should be treated in a fashion similar to those in patients with “conventional” venous thoracic outlet syndrome. By aggressive use of thoracic outlet decompression in patients with dialysis access dysfunction caused by costoclavicular stenosis we have achieved fistula salvage in approximately two-thirds of patients who would otherwise have required ligation. This lesion should be considered “dialysis-dependent venous TOS” and treated aggressively.
KeywordsDialysis Patient Subclavian Vein Surgical Decompression Thoracic Outlet Syndrome Innominate Vein
- 1.Fistula First Data. http://www.fistulafirst.org/AboutFistulaFirst/FFBIData.aspx. Accessed May 2011.
- 5.Costa E, Rocha S, Rocha-Pereira P, Castro E, Reis F, Teixeira F, Miranda V, Do SameiroFaria M, Loureiro A, Quintanilha A, Belo L, Santos-Silva A. Cross-talk between inflammation, coagulation/fibrinolysis and vascular access in hemodialysis patients. J Vasc Access. 2008;9(4):248–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 8.NKF-K/DOQI clinical practice guidelines for vascular access 2000. Am J Kidney Dis 2001;37:s137–81.Google Scholar
- 13.Glass C, Gillespie D. Intravascular ultrasound for innominate vein and superior vena cava stenting. Feb 2011 American venous forum (San Diego), abstract.Google Scholar
- 15.Yu SH, Dilley RB. Internal jugular vein turndown for subclavian vein occlusion. Techniques in the surgical and catheter based treatment of venous disorders. Operative Tech Gen Surg. 2008;10(3):149–53.Google Scholar