In Practice Central Vein Stenosis Anil K. Agarwal, MD Central vein stenosis (CVS) is commonly seen in patients receiving hemodialysis through an arteriovenous access, threatening the usability of arteriovenous access for dialysis. Subclavian and internal jugular catheters are prime reasons for the development of CVS, especially in the setting of long-term use of multiple catheters. CVS related to cardiac rhythm devices also is seen frequently. Idiopathic CVS can be encountered, although it is less common. Clinical features ultimately become sufficiently prominent to prompt angiographic evaluation. CVS should be evaluated carefully because management must be individualized. The primary method for treatment of CVS is endovascular intervention, including angioplasty and stent placement, whereas surgical options should be pursued in only refractory cases due to the invasiveness of the intervention. Early referral of patients for chronic kidney disease care; timely discussion of kidney replacement modality choices, including nonhemodialysis options such as peritoneal dialysis and kidney transplantation; placement of arteriovenous access prior to the onset of dialysis; and avoidance of catheters and other central vein instrumentation will prevent the development of CVS in most patients with kidney disease. Am J Kidney Dis. 61(6):1001-1015. © 2013 by the National Kidney Foundation, Inc. INDEX WORDS: Central vein stenosis; dialysis access; dialysis catheter complications; tunneled dialysis catheter; vascular access. CASE PRESENTATION A 44-year-old woman with a history of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) initiated dialysis therapy through a right internal jugular tunneled dialysis catheter in 2006. A month later, she developed catheterrelated infection, leading to its removal and placement of a left internal jugular tunneled dialysis catheter. Recurrent infection of this catheter within a month resulted in its removal and placement of a new right internal jugular tunneled catheter. Due to cuff exposure, this catheter was exchanged, and recurrent bacteremia 1 month later was treated with antibiotics and another catheter exchange. Seven months after initiating dialysis therapy, her right arm brachiocephalic arteriovenous (AV) fistula (AVF) was mature and was cannulated successfully, and the catheter was removed. Several months later, she was noted to have increased venous pressure during dialysis. An angiogram showed 70%-80% stenosis of the right brachiocephalic (innominate) vein, and angioplasty was performed successfully. High pressures recurred 5 months later, and this procedure was repeated for recurrent stenosis, only to be repeated 5 months later for the same reason. In early 2008, she underwent a third angioplasty of recurrent innominate stenosis with placement of a 14⫻40-mm SMART stent (Cordis). Six months later, in-stent stenosis was treated with angioplasty; however, 6 months after this, the stent required recanalization. This was repeated twice in 2009 and twice in 2010. In late 2010, she presented with swelling of the right arm, right side of the face, and right breast that had progressed over several months. On examination, there was marked edema of the right upper extremity, neck, and right side of the face with massive enlargement of the right breast, and prominent tortuous veins were noted over the right upper chest wall. A fistulogram was obtained that showed complete occlusion of the right innominate vein and stent (Fig 1). INTRODUCTION Venous outflow of the hemodialysis (HD) vascular access completes the circuit that originates with cardiac output from the left side of the heart, providing the arterial inflow for the AV vascular access. The patency of all components of dialysis vascular access, Am J Kidney Dis. 2013;61(6):1001-1015 including the arterial tree, AV anastomosis, peripheral veins, and central veins, is critical for the provision of consistent, adequate, comfortable, and uncomplicated dialysis. The peripheral component of the venous outflow of an AV access (which acts as the user interface for cannulation) starts at the arterial anastomosis and ends at its confluence into the intracavitary veins, demarcating the beginning of the “central” veins. The major intrathoracic veins (subclavian vein, brachiocephalic [also called innominate] vein, and superior vena cava) are considered the central veins in the upper extremity, and the veins cephalad to the inguinal ligament in the lower extremity (iliac veins and inferior vena cava) constitute the central veins draining the lower extremity (Fig 2). The cephalic arch in the upper extremity, although considered a central vein by some, cannot be considered a central vein by these criteria. The central veins are significantly larger and thicker, have higher blood flow, and are more elastic than the peripheral veins. Overlapping bones make these central veins less accessible to surgical intervention when central vein stenosis (CVS) or occlusion impedes venous return from the whole extremity (Fig 3). Pooling of blood behind the obstrucFrom Interventional Nephrology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH. Received April 3, 2012. Accepted in revised form October 22, 2012. Originally published online January 7, 2013. Address correspondence to Anil K. Agarwal, MD, Interventional Nephrology, The Ohio State University, 395 W 12th Ave, Ground Fl, Columbus, OH 43210. E-mail: anil.agarwal@osumc.edu © 2013 by the National Kidney Foundation, Inc. 0272-6386/$36.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/j.ajkd.2012.10.024 1001 Anil K. Agarwal Figure 1. Fistulogram shows central veins with complete occlusion of the right subclavian-brachiocephalic (innominate) junction with a thrombosis in the brachiocephalic vein. Note collateralization in the neck and upper chest. tion often results in symptoms due to venous hypertension, and complete occlusion renders the extremity unsuitable for vascular access. Apart from compromising the ipsilateral side from the standpoint of vascular access, CVS in patients with ESRD has other clinical consequences, including increased morbidity, hospitalization, and mortality. Previous or concomitant use of central venous devices, including central venous catheters (CVCs) and cardiac rhythm devices, is the most common reason for the development of CVS. Device-unrelated CVS is relatively uncommon and could be due to external compression or may be idiopathic. This review focuses on CVS in patients on HD therapy in the context of vascular access and intravascular device use. EPIDEMIOLOGY A recent increase in the number of vascular access procedures performed by nephrologists has resulted in increased detection and awareness of CVS. Almost 80% of patients in the United States initiate dialysis therapy with a catheter, and repeated attempts to Figure 2. Anatomy of the venous system shows central veins in the upper and lower extremities. The designations brachiocephalic and innominate are synonymous. 1002 Figure 3. Near-complete occlusion of the right brachiocephalic (innominate) vein with retrograde flow to the internal jugular vein and the presence of collaterals. create and develop an AVF rather than place an AV graft (AVG), even in those with suboptimal veins, have the potential to prolong the duration of catheter use and cause CVS, although at present there are no data to prove such an impact of current fistula strategy.1 The true incidence and prevalence of CVS in the ESRD population is unknown because most studies of CVS are limited to symptomatic patients. CVS may remain asymptomatic because clinical symptoms and signs of CVS often develop only after an AVF or AVG is placed in the ipsilateral extremity and the impediment to increased blood flow is unmasked.2 Additionally, if the stenosis is not critical or there is development of adequate collateral flow, the venous pooling that occurs in the setting of a stenosis may remain asymptomatic. Clinical signs may be subtle, and the only indication of access dysfunction may be inadequate dialysis. Angiographic studies of symptomatic patients demonstrate a high prevalence of CVS. Subclavian catheter placement is particularly high risk, with the development of subclavian vein stenosis in approximately 25%-50% of patients in various studies.3,4 In one cohort of 36 patients with a history of subclavian catheter placement, angiographic evaluation prior to AVF placement showed subclavian vein stenosis in 34%.5 Furthermore, in this study, of the 4 patients already on HD therapy with fistula dysfunction, 3 had stenosis of the subclavian vein and one had complete occlusion. This contrasts with a control group of 30 patients with subclavian veins with no history of cannulation in which no stenoses were noted. Retrospective investigations of symptomatic HD patients Am J Kidney Dis. 2013;61(6):1001-1015 Central Vein Stenosis Figure 4. (A) Right internal jugular vein stenosis occurring only 1 week after placement of a temporary hemodialysis catheter. (B) During balloon angioplasty, the waist on the balloon defines severe stenosis of the vein. (Picture courtesy of Tony Samaha, MD.) with various accesses using duplex ultrasonography or angiography have reported CVS prevalences of 19%-41%.6-8 The occurrence of CVS with internal jugular catheters also has been demonstrated increasingly in more recent studies. Long-term femoral vein catheters also are being used more frequently for dialysis, and iliac vein and inferior vena cava stenoses are not uncommon. Although longer catheter duration has been implicated in CVS, temporary (nontunneled) dialysis catheters also have been associated with CVS (Fig 4A and B). For example, a recent study of color Doppler sonography of 100 consecutive patients receiving temporary double-lumen dialysis catheters showed CVS in 18%.9 Cause of and Risk Factors for CVS CVS is associated with intravascular device or central catheter placement in most cases, although it occasionally can be idiopathic (Box 1). Preoperative venography of patients prior to right internal jugular vein tunneled catheter placement showed the presence of CVS or angulation in 30% of patients without a history of central catheter placement.10 The occur- rence of CVS in HD patients has been reported on the ipsilateral side of the AV access without a history of previous CVC placement and is considered to be due to increased flow and abnormal shear stress on the side of access.11,12 Compression of the innominate vein between arch vessels and the sternum also can occur.13 The following sections review risk factors for the occurrence of CVS in patients undergoing CVC or device placement. Number and Duration of CVCs Irrespective of the location (subclavian or internal jugular), a larger number and longer duration of CVC use increases the risk of developing CVS.4,14 In one study of subclavian vein stenosis, the mean number of ipsilateral subclavian catheters was 1.6, and mean duration of catheter use was 5.5 weeks.3 Further, a prospective study of 42 consecutive subclavian vein catheterizations demonstrated that stenosis more often was persistent (vs spontaneous recanalization) at 6 months in those with a larger number of inserted catheters (2.0 vs 1.6), longer dwell time (49 vs 29 days), more dialysis sessions through the catheter (21 vs 12), and more catheter-related infections (66.6% vs 33.3%).15 Box 1. Causes of Central Vein Stenosis in Dialysis Patients Related to intravascular device Central vein catheters Tunneled dialysis catheters Nontunneled dialysis catheters Peripherally inserted central catheters Other central venous catheters and ports Cardiac rhythm devices Pacemakers Defibrillators Unrelated to intravascular device Idiopathic Extrinsic compression of vein Dialysis-associated venous thoracic outlet syndrome Fibrosing mediastinitis Retroperitoneal fibrosis Post–radiation therapy Am J Kidney Dis. 2013;61(6):1001-1015 Location of CVC Anatomical configuration can expose a vein to a unique degree of contact with catheters. Initial studies demonstrated a much higher prevalence of CVS with subclavian dialysis catheters (42%) than with internal jugular dialysis catheters (10%).16 This may reflect in part placement of 78% of internal jugular catheters on the right side compared with 58% of subclavian catheters. Similarly, a small study of short-term temporary dialysis catheters (32 subclavian and 20 internal jugular) showed a high incidence of CVS (50%) in the subclavian group and none in the internal jugular group,17 whereas another study of temporary HD catheters in 57 HD patients showed no difference in 1003 Anil K. Agarwal stenosis rates between subclavian and internal jugular catheterization, with thrombus formation in 28%, subclavian stenosis in 14%, and superior vena cava stenosis in 2% of the population.18 In this study, the number of subclavian catheters was small and could explain the lack of difference in the incidence of CVS between anatomical locations. Importantly, although the risk of CVS appears to be lower than with subclavian catheters, internal jugular catheters frequently are associated with venous thrombosis and CVS.19-21 In one study, a high incidence of thrombosis (26%) and venous occlusion (62%) was found by ultrasonography in 143 patients with a right internal jugular dialysis catheter,22 whereas a second study reporting results of routine evaluation of 133 patients found CVS in 41% of patients, despite only 18 (14%) patients having prior subclavian vein catheterization.6 Another routine venographic study of 69 patients undergoing placement of tunneled right internal jugular catheters showed CVS or angulation of the central veins in 42% of patients; 65% of patients with these findings had previous internal jugular catheters.12 These studies point to the frequency and duration of CVC placement as being a more important determinant of CVS than the specific location. A higher prevalence of CVS with catheters placed on the left rather than the right side may reflect the longer and more tortuous course required of a leftsided catheter. The course of left-sided CVCs is remarkable for at least 3 sites of sharp angles: at the transition from the left internal jugular vein to the left brachiocephalic (innominate) vein, at the midpoint of the left brachiocephalic (innominate) vein as it wraps around the mediastinal vessels, and at the junction of the left brachiocephalic (innominate) vein and the superior vena cava (Fig 5).23 Higher wall contact with a longer course, especially during physiologic movements associated with respiration, the cardiac cycle, and external movements, may result in increased endothelial injury that stimulates fibrotic pathways, thereby resulting in future CVS. Additionally, an ultrasound study demonstrated that the cross-sectional area of the left internal jugular vein was much smaller than the right internal jugular vein in most healthy adults, potentially making the left side more vulnerable to CVS.24 An analysis of 403 right and 77 left internal jugular catheters in 294 HD patients found a higher number of infectious and vascular complications in the left internal jugular group25; most notably, 4 patients with prior left internal jugular catheters developed ipsilateral central venous occlusion resulting in permanent vascular access loss versus none in the right internal jugular group. Another retrospective study of 127 patients with internal jugular catheters showed that 50% (7/14) of patients with 1004 Figure 5. (A) Thick slab maximum intensity projection image shows a sharp angulation of the brachiocephalic vein as it crosses the aorta and great vessels. (B) Coronal MIP image in the same patient. The angulation of the brachiocephalic vein cannot be appreciated in this projection. Reproduced from Salik et al23 with permission of Elsevier. left internal jugular catheters developed CVS compared to 0.9% (1/117) with right internal jugular catheters (P⬍0.05). Of note, 7 of 13 patients with a left-sided catheter and left AVF developed signs and symptoms of CVS versus 1 of 24 patients with a right-sided catheter and right AVF.14 External compression of the left brachiocephalic (innominate) vein by the mediastinal structures also may be responsible for CVS in some cases (Fig 6).26 An engorged subclavian vein can be compressed between the clavicle and first rib, causing hemodialysis-associated thoracic outlet syndrome.27 CVS also has been reported in association with femoral cathAm J Kidney Dis. 2013;61(6):1001-1015 Central Vein Stenosis Figure 7. Stenosis of the left subclavian vein (arrow) due to the presence of pacemaker wires. Note the presence of collateralization in the upper arm and retrograde filling of the cephalic vein. Reproduced from Agarwal37 with permission of Elsevier. eters, and the incidence of this complication might increase as use of this access site increases.28 Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters Smaller caliber CVCs (such as peripherally inserted central [PICC] and triple-lumen catheters) also can be associated with thrombus formation and CVS over a short term.29-32 In 150 patients undergoing PICC placement who had no evidence of CVS or occlusion on preplacement venography, 7% had CVS or occlusion on subsequent venography; this was particularly common in those with longer catheter dwell time.33 It is difficult to ascertain the true clinical incidence and prevalence of CVS in patients with PICCs because few patients with a history of PICCs are studied with angiography or challenged by high blood flow from an AV access. Increasing use of PICCs in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) has the potential to result in difficulty obtaining vascular access in the future. A recent retrospective casecontrol study of dialysis patients found that 44.2% of those using a nonfistula access (catheters and grafts) had a history of PICC placement compared with only 19.7% of those using AVFs.34 Single-lumen tunneled central infusion catheters may be less risky, although no such evidence of their safety is available at present. Figure 6. Left upper-extremity fistulogram shows different degrees of left brachiocephalic (innominate) vein compression. (A) Splaying of the left brachiocephalic vein (star) of a patient with mild (grade 1) compression. (B) Indentation of the left brachiocephalic vein (arrow) and collaterals (arrowhead) in a patient with moderate (grade 2) compression. (C) Marked indentation of the left brachiocephalic vein (arrows) and prominent collaterals (star) in a patient with severe (grade 3) compression by what appear to be the brachiocephalic (innominate) and left common carotid arteries. Reproduced from Maxim et al26 with permission of Elsevier. Am J Kidney Dis. 2013;61(6):1001-1015 Cardiac Rhythm Device–Associated CVS Cardiovascular disease is a common comorbid condition in patients with advanced CKD, and use of intravascular devices such as pacemakers or defibrillators is common.35,36 The left upper chest is the preferred location for both vascular access placement and cardiac rhythm device placement. Constant friction from pacemaker leads can cause persistent inflammation of the left central veins (Fig 7).37 In one study 1005 Anil K. Agarwal of 30 patients with long-term transvenous defibrillators in place for 45 ⫾ 21 months, venography showed a 50% prevalence of subclavian vein stenosis,38 whereas in another study, abnormalities of the central veins were found in 64% of patients on routine angiography after 6 months, suggesting that even a relatively short duration of injury is not inconsequential.39 Other studies of such devices also have shown a high prevalence of central vein abnormality,40-42 with one recent retrospective review of HD patients showing 62% of individuals with cardiac rhythm devices versus 32% of individuals without cardiac rhythm devices having CVS.43 Critically, CVS can remain asymptomatic and may manifest only when challenged by increased blood flow from a dialysis access.35,44,45 The presence of CVS should be suspected and proactively investigated prior to placement of AV access in patients with a cardiac rhythm device and preemptively treated if an ipsilateral AV access is necessary. Furthermore, a device should not be placed ipsilateral to the AV access. Angioplasty and stent placement of the CVS associated with device wires is possible, but carries the risk of erosion of the leads over months to years. Stent placement over the leads should be avoided because stents may make wire extraction very difficult in the event of an infection. Finally, epicardial lead implantation, although more invasive, may be preferable in the appropriate scenarios to avoid the risk of CVS. PATHOPHYSIOLOGY CVS due to venous catheters most likely is related to heightened inflammation, increased oxidative stress, activation of leukocytes, release of myeloperoxidase, and activation of the coagulation cascade after catheter placement.46 The endothelial damage begins with the initial trauma from vein cannulation that is perpetuated by an indwelling foreign body that is not biocompatible. Further, constant movement of the catheter with respiration, movements of the head, and changes in posture, as well as increased flow and turbulence from the AV access, alter the shear stress, resulting in platelet deposition and venous wall thickening.47 Trauma to the vessel wall results in thrombin generation, platelet activation, and expression of P-selectin with inflammatory response,48 and subsequent activation of leukocytes results in release of myeloperoxidase and formation of platelet aggregates, culminating in intravascular thrombosis.49 Catheters frequently are associated with formation of a thrombus, often in conjunction with venous stenosis at the same site, although it is unclear whether the thrombus and the stenosis are causally related to each other.50 Not only does the formation of platelet thrombi and a thrombus 1006 at the tip of the catheter cause catheter dysfunction, but an adherent thrombus also may be the first step in the formation of a fibrin sleeve on the outer surface of the catheter. This process starts early, and a full-length sleeve can form as early as within a week.51,52 Thrombotic complications commonly occur in veins that have been catheterized and frequently are associated with catheter sepsis.53 Stabilizing the tip of the catheter to the center of the vein lumen with a thin wire loop in a swine model caused less injury, thrombosis, and thickening in the vessel wall.54 This supports the mechanical theory of the development of CVS. Activation of coagulation factors may be an important element in the cause of CVS. Animal models have shown that structural changes in the vein wall occur within 24 hours after endothelial denudation, marked by the development of platelet microthrombi.55 During the next 7-8 days, several layers of smooth muscle cells develop in the injured areas, but apparently only if a “critical” area of injury is present, without which the proliferative response does not occur. Direct evidence for histopathologic changes is scant in humans, but subclavian vein specimens from directional atherectomy in patients with symptomatic stenosis or occlusion show intimal hyperplasia and the presence of fibrous tissue.56 Autopsy finding of an adherent clot with intimal injury in patients with less than 14 days of catheter use and the presence of smooth muscle proliferation and thickened venous wall in those with more than 90 days of catheter use further support this hypothesis.57 Importantly, these catheters also were found to be focally attached to the vein wall by organizing thrombus, endothelial cells, and collagen, perhaps suggesting imminent development of a fibrin sheath or CVS. Bioincompatibility of the intravascular device likely is one of the factors in the causation of venous injury and inflammation. Catheter material may have different levels of antigenicity, potential for tissue growth, and fibrogenesis, and this issue requires further study. It has been suggested that Silastic internal jugular catheters may produce less thrombosis,58 with one study of the use of silicone catheters conducted in 22 patients with subclavian cannulation showing stenosis in only 2 and thrombosis in only 3. In this study, there was a lower incidence of subclavian vein stenosis with these catheters than with polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) and polyurethane catheters.59 In a rabbit model, polyethylene and Teflon catheters caused more inflammation than silicone and polyurethane.60 Both silicone (eg, Tesio [Medcomp] and Schon [AngioDynamics]) and polyurethane (eg, Opti-Flow [Bard Access Systems] and Ash Split [Medcomp]) commonly are used to manufacture long-term dialysis catheters. Am J Kidney Dis. 2013;61(6):1001-1015 Central Vein Stenosis Figure 8. (A) Severe stenosis of the superior vena cava (SVC) with edema of face, lips, and thorax at presentation and (B) dramatic resolution of edema after successful angioplasty of SVC stenosis. (Photographs courtesy of Arif Asif, MD.) Infections associated with CVCs may aggravate inflammation and predispose to the development of CVS. In one study of 54 long-term HD patients, venography performed 6 months after catheter removal showed a 75% prevalence of CVS in those with previous catheter infections compared with 28% in those with no infection.61 It also is plausible that CVS was the predisposing factor for infection, pointing to a possible vicious cycle. It can be hypothesized that inflammation and activation of coagulation pathways act in combination and are not sufficient by themselves to cause CVS. However, in a retrospective study of 77 patients with lupus and ESRD, 17 patients (22%) had documented CVS, similar to the nonlupus group.62 Number of CVCs, but not degree of inflammation, was found to be associated with CVS in this retrospective cohort study. Thus, it is possible that a systemic inflammatory disease such as lupus may not result in a particularly higher incidence or prevalence of CVS due to competing inflammation present in patients with ESRD, although the small size of this retrospective study cannot be considered conclusive. Anatomical factors also may contribute to the pathophysiology and pathogenesis of CVS. The anatomy of the left-sided central veins, as previously mentioned, is more conducive to the development of CVS,23,24,26,63 with 3-dimensional models of the left-sided veins suggesting an additional angulation of the brachiocephalic (innominate) vein over the brachiocephalic artery and the aortic arch that is not present on the right.23 Other risk factors for CVS, such as sex-specific differences, need to be studied further. In the absence of intravascular device placement, the occurrence of CVS is unexplained. It is plausible that the altered shear stress and turbulence with changes in blood flow pattern and speed due to an AV access in conjunction with oxidative stress lead to venous wall hyperplasia and eventual stenosis. CLINICAL FEATURES CVS becomes symptomatic in HD patients with an increase in extremity blood flow from an AV access. Am J Kidney Dis. 2013;61(6):1001-1015 The clinical features of CVS vary according to the site of obstruction and mechanism of development. Related to Venous Hypertension Peripheral to the Obstruction Venous engorgement from CVS may result in edema, swelling, pain, tenderness, and erythema of the ipsilateral extremity, along with ipsilateral breast swelling. Pleural effusions may develop in severe cases. In cases of stenosis of the bilateral brachiocephalic veins or if superior vena cava syndrome develops, this typically responds to angioplasty (Fig 8A and B). In chronic superior vena cava obstruction, alternative venous drainage into the azygous system can develop, although clinical features of CVS are always present (Fig 9).37 Intercostal veins often can be dilated as well (Fig 10). Rarely, abnormal flow in the left jugular bulb and inferior petrosal sinuses can be caused by retrograde flow from brachiocephalic vein stenosis, leading to false suspicion of the presence of a carotid cavernous fistula.64 Figure 9. Severe stenosis of the superior vena cava with a significantly dilated azygous vein (arrowhead). Reproduced from Agarwal37 with permission of Elsevier. 1007 Anil K. Agarwal Figure 10. Occlusion of the subclavian vein with development of alternative venous drainage through the intercostal and internal thoracic veins. (Photo courtesy of Rizwan Qazi, MD.) Related to Vascular Access Dysfunction During Dialysis Venous engorgement due to CVS can cause tortuosity and aneurysmal dilatation of veins, collateral formation, prolonged bleeding after dialysis, elevated venous pressures during dialysis, and thrombosis of the vascular access. Poor adequacy of dialysis and its consequences, including recurrent hyperkalemia, can develop if CVS is untreated. It is possible to have CVS without specific symptoms. For example, only about half the patients with subclavian vein obstruction develop edema of the arm.3 Clinically asymptomatic CVS is detected incidentally by angiography done in preparation of AV access placement or during investigation of unrelated access dysfunction. DIAGNOSIS A high index of suspicion, especially in those with a history of multiple catheter placements or longstanding catheter use, can lead to clinical diagnosis of CVS. Careful physical examination may reveal limb or breast swelling and the development of collaterals, particularly around the neck and upper part of the chest, and retrograde flow in collateral veins detected on physical examination may indicate the presence of more central outflow obstruction. However, the definitive diagnosis of CVS is made by angiography. Angiography is superior to duplex ultrasonography and is recommended prior to placement of an AV access in dialysis patients with a history of previous CVC placement, especially subclavian catheters.65,66 A minimal amount of an iso-osmolar radiocontrast can be used safely for a venogram in patients not yet on dialysis therapy. Duplex ultrasonography is suboptimal for the evaluation of central veins due to interfer1008 ence by the bony thorax and overlapping soft tissue in obese individuals. However, color flow duplex ultrasonography avoids the use of radiocontrast and can suggest CVS when there is an absence of respiratory variation in vessel diameter, lack of polyphasic atrial waves, and presence of collateral channels.67 In a study comparing duplex ultrasonography to venography in symptomatic patients with a liver transplant, dialysis, or cancer, there was significant yield with duplex and 90% agreement with venography.68 In this study, the optimal threshold for detection of a ⬎50% stenosis by duplex ultrasonography was a poststenotic to prestenotic peak vein velocity ratio of 2.5. These results suggest that duplex ultrasonography can be used not only to select which patients should receive an intervention, but also for monitoring how successful the treatment is during follow-up. Magnetic resonance angiography to evaluate central veins has been used previously, but should be avoided due to the possibility of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis after gadolinium use in patients with advanced kidney disease.69 Newer techniques, such as time-of-flight magnetic resonance angiography, may be able to visualize veins without using contrast. APPROACH TO THE TREATMENT OF CVS Prior to considering intervention, it is important to evaluate the patient carefully and individually, keeping in mind the often temporary improvement associated with current methods of treatment, clinical care, and needs and all available options for kidney replacement therapy for that individual patient. Conservative Approach Close observation of patients with chronic obstruction and adequately developed collaterals may be sufficient. Intervention is indicated when either HD is inadequate or if symptoms appear. Occasionally, symptoms may improve as collaterals develop. Simple measures such as elevation of the extremity can help in very mild cases of CVS. For an associated thrombus in the central vein, anticoagulation therapy is indicated, as suggested by available guidelines.70,71 The catheter, if still functional, asymptomatic, and needed, should not be removed. These measures may only be able to bridge a dysfunctional access while more definitive therapy is planned for correction of obstruction or creation of a new access to allow catheter avoidance. Endovascular Intervention Endovascular intervention should be considered with caution because the approaches to correction of CVS remain suboptimal and possibly even detrimental. In one study, more aggressive neointimal hyperplaAm J Kidney Dis. 2013;61(6):1001-1015 Central Vein Stenosis sia and proliferative lesions were found in restenotic areas after angioplasty than were found in the original stenosis.72 In another study of ⬎50% CVS in 35 asymptomatic HD patients with 38 AVGs, 86 venograms were reviewed.73 No intervention was done in 28% of cases, and none of these patients progressed to symptoms, stent placement, or additional CVS. In contrast, in the 72% of cases in which percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) was performed, escalation of CVS after PTA was seen in 8% of these cases, resulting in further interventions. Although there is possible indication bias, these findings support the theory that endothelial damage from angioplasty can aggravate the venous response and accelerate the stenotic process. It also is possible that a rather high residual stenosis (40%) in the intervention group was an indication of its already refractory nature and that a more aggressive approach with stent placement might have been beneficial.74 Thus, endovascular intervention for CVS requires careful planning while using restraint when feasible. Endovascular intervention also can be used as a palliative approach. Coil embolization of the long thoracic vein has been shown to reduce breast edema in HD patients who have elevated venous hydrostatic pressure due to central venous occlusion.75 Percutaneous Transluminal Angioplasty PTA, either on its own or with stent placement, is the preferred approach to CVS, depending on the rapidity of recurrence (guideline 20 of the National Kidney Foundation–Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative [NKF-KDOQI]).76 PTA for central venous disease has been in vogue for almost 3 decades and has very high technical success rates, ranging from 70%-90%.47,77-82 The variable patency rates in these studies may be due to the variety of criteria used by authors in reporting their results, as well as the wide variety of techniques and equipment used. According to these studies, at 6 months, unassisted patency after PTA varies from 23%-63%, with a cumulative patency rate range of 29%-100%, whereas at 12 months, unassisted patency after PTA ranges from 12%-50%, with a cumulative patency rate of 13%-100%. Although poor patency rates after PTA alone were seen in 2 earlier studies of patients with CVS (28.9% at 180 days and 25% at 1 year),75,83 a more recent study using high-pressure balloons noted better results with PTA alone, with unassisted patency after PTA of 60% at 6 months and 30% at 12 months.84 Results in this study and similar results from a second more recent study81 suggest either a difference in patient population or technical advances, including the use of high-pressure balloons. Significant secondary patency often can be achieved with repeated Am J Kidney Dis. 2013;61(6):1001-1015 angioplasty without use of a stent. Critically, a lack of large randomized controlled studies of PTA in patients with CVS does not allow fair comparison of outcomes of PTA vis à vis other treatment modalities. Intravascular ultrasound study after angioplasty of the central veins has shown that central veins are much more likely to recoil than the peripheral veins.85 Thus, the success of PTA often depends on the elastic or nonelastic nature of the lesion, which may have different structural characteristics of the stenosis as shown by intravascular ultrasound.78. STENTS Lack of sustained results with PTA led to the use of stents for CVS.86 Guidelines for CVS recommend placement of a stent for elastic recoil of the vein that leads to significant residual stenosis after PTA or for lesions recurring within 3 months after angioplasty.76,87 Placement of self-expandable stents in the treatment of CVS typically achieves a high degree of technical success. For example, use of self-expanding metallic stents for elastic lesions was associated with better outcomes than angioplasty alone. However, the primary and secondary patency of stents is modest at best (Table 1).88 It also is difficult to compare results of different studies done over a period of time because stainless steel stents were used in earlier studies. In one study of 52 HD patients with 56 lesions, 51 self-expandable metallic stents were placed.89 Primary and secondary patency rates were 46% and 76% at 6 months and 20% and 33% at 12 months, respectively. However, another study of 57 self-expandable metallic stents in 50 patients with CVS had far better results, with primary patency rates of 92%, 84%, 56%, and 28% at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively.90 Secondary patency also was significantly better: 97% after 6 and 12 months, 89% after 24 months, and 81% after both 36 and 48 months. In a retrospective study, 23 patients with symptomatic refractory CVS were treated with various types of stent placement.91 In this study, median primary patency was 138 days, with 1-year patency of only 19%, whereas median secondary patency was 1,036 days with 64% patency at 1 year. A recent retrospective analysis of the Nitinol shape memory alloy stents in 64 patients (with 15 central and 54 peripheral vein stents) showed primary patency of 14.9 months in central veins and 8.9 months in peripheral veins.92 Significantly better results in this retrospective study may reflect the more advanced nature of the stent material, although this conclusion remains conjecture. Repeated interventions are needed to maintain patency achieved by the stents over longer periods. 1009 Anil K. Agarwal Table 1. Studies of Stent Placement in Central Vein Stenosis Study No. of Central Lesions Primary Patency Secondary Patency 83.3% (95% CI, 50%-120%) at 3 mo, and 66.7% at 6 and 12 mo (95% CIs, 20%110% and 10%-120%) Fistula group rates: 88.5% ⫾ 4.8%, 59.4% ⫾ 7.6%, and 46% ⫾ 7.9% at 3, 6, and 9 mo; graft group rates: 78.1% ⫾ 7.3%, 40.7% ⫾ 9%, and 16% ⫾ 7.3% at 3, 6, and 9 mo 19% at 1 ya NA Secondary patency: 100% at 12 mo with 3 patients censored over that time Rajan DK (2007) 6 Rajan DK (2007) 89 Maya ID (2007) Sprouse LR (2004) 23 32 Aytekin C (2004) 14 Chen CY (2003) 18 Hatzimpaloglou A (2002) Smayra T (2001) Haage P (1999) 15 9 50 Vesely TM (1997) 20 Mickley V (1997) Lumsden AB (1997) Vesely TM (1997) 15 25 20 Mickley V (1997) Gray RJ (1995) Beathard GA (1992) 15 32 24 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-mo primary stent patency rates: 92.8%, 85.7%, 50%, and 14.3% 3, 6, 12 and 18 mo: 100% and 89%, 73% and 68%, 49% and 42%, and 16% and 0%c 70% at 12 and 24 mo 56% at 1 y 3, 6, 12, and 24 mo: 92%, 84%, 56%, and 2% 1, 3, 6 mo, and 1 y: 90%, 67%, 42%, and 25% 1 y: 100%; 2 y: 85% 84% at 1 mo, 42% at 6 mo, and 17% at 1 y 1, 3, 6 mo and 1 y: 90%, 67%, 42%, and 25% 100% at 1 y, 85% at 2 y 46% at 6 mo, 20% at 12 mob NA Matthews R (1992) 2 NA NA 64% at 1 ya Symptoms related to central stenosis were controlled for 6.5 mo on average 3-, 6-, 12-mo and 2-y secondary patency rates: 100%, 88.8%, 55.5%, and 33.3% 100% after 3 mo, 93% and 100% after 6 mo, 85% and 91% after 12 mo and, 68% and 72% after 24 mo NA 75% 1 y 97% after 6 and 12 mo, 89% after 24 mo, and 81% after 36 and 48 mo 3, 6 mo, 1 and 2 y: 89%, 64%, 56%, and 22% 1 y: 70%; 2 y: 50% — 3, 6 mo, 1 and 2 y: 89%, 64%, 56%, and 22% 70% at 1 y, 50% at 2 y 76% at 6 mo, 33% at 12 mob 70.4% at 1 mo, 62.1% at 2 mo, 48.6% at 3 mo, and 28.9% at 4 mo NA Note: All studies are observational studies except for Matthews 1992, which is a case report. Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; NA, not available. Modified and reproduced from Yevzlin88 with permission of John Wiley and Sons. a All stents had restenosis on follow-up venogram. b Peripheral and central outcomes were mixed in the data reporting. Two central stents migrated after catheter placement. c Primary patency rates given for stent and hemodialysis access at each time point. Because some of these accesses are terminal, stent placement and multiple periodic interventions may be appropriate. Bare-metal stents are associated with shortening, migration, fracture, and neointimal hyperplasia and require repeated treatments with PTA.93-96 The type of stent used also may be a factor in the variable success rates of these stents. First-generation stents, such as self-expandable metallic stents, are low profile, flexible, and radiopaque, but have disadvantages of foreshortening at the time of placement, delayed shortening, and migration.97 Second-generation stents made of nickel-titanium alloy transform according to temperature, are superelastic, and can return to their original shape after the deforming force is removed. Use of covered stents also is becoming increasingly common, and these “stent grafts” or “en1010 dografts” have the advantage of providing a relatively inert and stable intravascular matrix for endothelialization, thereby reducing restenosis.97 Studies of the efficacy of covered stents are now emerging.3,98 One study evaluating PTFE-covered stent placement showed 360-day primary patency of 32% and secondary patency of 39%,96 whereas a similar study evaluating Dacron (polyethylene terephthalate)-covered stents showed primary and secondary patency rates of 29% and 64%, respectively, at 1 year.99 Immediate and long-term results of stent grafts are encouraging in more recent studies.100-102 Outcomes of PTA alone and stent placement have not been compared in randomized controlled trials. A study of central vein angioplasty (n ⫽ 101) and stent placement (n ⫽ 46) showed that angioplasty alone Am J Kidney Dis. 2013;61(6):1001-1015 Central Vein Stenosis was superior to stent placement in terms of primary patency, but assisted (secondary) patency of both angioplasty and stent placement was similar, pointing to a benefit with stent placement in angioplastyresistant lesions.103 Of note, these authors used cutting balloons prior to placing stents. Similar patency with angioplasty and stent placement was seen in other recent studies.104,105 Thus, use of stents can improve initial technical success in patients resistant to PTA alone. In summary, venous stents have many limitations, such as migration, fracture, intrastent neointimal hyperplasia, and appearance of unrelated stenoses. Stents placed in the low-pressure venous system are inherently less likely to remain patent than in the highpressure arterial system. Despite these shortcomings, stent placement offers an immediate access-saving intervention for those with difficult access with refractory lesions who require a bridge to more definitive treatment later. Hybrid Graft-Catheter Device A novel approach to CVS recently has become available in the form of a hybrid graft-catheter. When CVS is refractory to the traditional approach but placement of a CVC is possible, this approach allows use of an internal AV access with reduced risk of infection.106 The graft portion of the device is placed in the arm and is connected to the catheter component that traverses the CVS. The indication for such a device currently is limited to the population with near-exhaustion of access sites, and long-term results will define its place in maintaining vascular access in the future. Cardiac Rhythm Device–Related CVS The management of CVS related to cardiac rhythm devices may require angioplasty, stent placement, or as a last resort, ligation of access to reduce symptoms. Angioplasty has been shown to be safe and provides poor primary but acceptable secondary patency rates at 1 year.107 If necessary, the stent can be placed over the lead wire, but this is not recommended because it will “jail the leads,” making removal of the wire difficult in case of infection in dialysis patients.108,109 If stent placement is needed, ideally the device first should be removed and replaced after the stent has been placed, although this is a much more complex procedure.110 Placement of epicardial leads should be considered in such cases, as well as in high-risk cases with advanced CKD proactively (prior to access placement) to preserve central veins and avoid lead infection.111 Am J Kidney Dis. 2013;61(6):1001-1015 Surgery In severely symptomatic cases, access occlusion can be achieved either manually, by surgical ligation, or by inflating a balloon inside the access for a prolonged period. When another access site is available, new access should be created, preferably preemptively (to avoid catheter use), and symptomatic CVS can be treated with ligation of access. A precision banding procedure to reduce access flow using realtime intravascular flow monitoring has been shown to reduce symptoms related to venous hypertension.112 Surgery for correction of CVS is difficult, often requiring claviculectomy or even median sternotomy. Accordingly, surgery usually is considered a last resort when percutaneous treatment has failed. Surgical intervention consists of direct repair using saphenous vein grafts or ringed PTFE grafts, jugular vein turndown to bypass a stenosed subclavian vein, or use of surgical techniques to create anastomosis of vein to vein or even vein to right atrium. Approaches include axillary to jugular vein, subclavian vein to superior vena cava, cephalic vein to external jugular vein, and axillary vein (or artery) to superior vena cava or auricular appendage anastomosis.113 In the lower extremity, common femoral vein to iliac vein or inferior vena cava and external iliac vein to inferior vena cava bypass can be done.114 Alternative Approaches for Kidney Replacement Therapy in CVS When vascular access is failing due to CVS, a different location for access should be considered. It also is reasonable to consider another modality of kidney replacement therapy, including changing to peritoneal dialysis and expediting kidney transplantation. These options should be discussed with the patient each time an access fails, irrespective of the cause or regardless of whether all vascular access options have been exhausted. PREVENTION CVS is likely to remain a major concern in the future because ⬎80% of patients initiating HD therapy in the United States do so with a CVC.1,115 Inadequate education and planning for vascular access during late CKD care, due to either late patient referral to a nephrologist or late referral to an access surgeon, needs to be addressed. Because the number and duration of CVCs remain the most important cause of CVS, avoidance of catheters is critical. In appropriate situations, all possible approaches should be considered at the onset of kidney failure, including fistula, graft, peritoneal dialysis, and preemptive kidney transplantation, with a focus on the “catheter last” approach. Early referral to a nephrologist and early 1011 Anil K. Agarwal placement of an AVF are essential. In patients with earlier stages of CKD, strategies to preserve vessels (both arteries and veins) should be followed. Risks of using catheters, especially subclavian catheters but also including infusion catheters and PICCs, should be emphasized. In patients with CKD, use of a singlelumen central venous infusion catheter may be preferable, although data about their safety are not available at this time. Additionally, the initiation of dialysis therapy can be delayed to allow time for access creation. In this regard, it is important to note that during the past decade, dialysis is being initiated at higher levels of estimated kidney function with little evidence for the benefits of such a practice.116 Once created, effective early salvage of immature AVFs and methods to improve the use of relatively difficult AVFs, such as creation of buttonholes, are important methods to increase initial and ongoing fistula usability.117 Finally, a femoral access is preferable to using a subclavian catheter for HD access. FUTURE DIRECTIONS IN MANAGEMENT OF CVS With controversial benefits and risks of angioplasty and stent placement, optimal treatment of CVS is elusive at this time. Because CVCs remain a “necessary evil,” approaches to improve catheters (less antigenic material and better hemodynamics) should be investigated. Animal and in vitro studies of the newer heparin-coated catheters have shown lower thrombosis and fibrin-sheath formation, although data for humans are limited. The impact of these newer catheters on the development of CVS should become a routine end point in such studies. Improvement in balloon and stent technology, including better cutting balloons and drug-eluting stents, may improve results, but these have not undergone systematic evaluation for treatment of central vein lesions. Initial results of using brachytherapy were encouraging, but it has not been shown to prolong the patency of the vein because of recurrent stenosis in new locations.118 Radiofrequency wire techniques are being evaluated for the treatment of central vein occlusion. Pharmacologic agents reducing inflammation and fibrosis also should be investigated. CASE REVIEW The patient had recurrent occlusion of a brachiocephalic vein stent with significant symptoms of venous hypertension. Although the left upper extremity was a potential site to create a secondary AVF, we wanted to preserve her current access if possible. Moreover, given the high number of catheters she had previously, it was likely that she also could have left brachiocephalic vein stenosis. We considered placement of a femoral AV access, but were reluctant on 1012 Figure 11. Recanalization of the brachiocephalic (innominate) vein stent with re-establishment of central flow in our patient. account of her morbid obesity, although that remains a viable future option. The patient did not have an ideal situation to perform peritoneal dialysis and was not an acceptable candidate for transplantation due to morbid obesity. Accordingly, she underwent recanalization of her right brachiocephalic vein stent using a traditional technique without using radiofrequency wire (Fig 11). Interestingly, she reported after the procedure that hearing in her right ear slowly started improving. The AVF was used without difficulty until she required another recanalization 10 months later, along with covered stent placement. She presently is using the same access for HD. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Support: None. Financial Disclosures: The author declares that he has no relevant financial interests. REFERENCES 1. US Renal Data System. USRDS 2010 Annual Data Report: Atlas of Chronic Kidney Disease and End-Stage Renal Disease in the United States. Am J Kidney Dis. 2011;57(1)(suppl 1):e1-e526. 2. Clark DD, Albina JE, Chazan JA. Subclavian vein stenosis and thrombosis: a potential serious complication in chronic hemodialysis patients. Am J Kidney Dis. 1990;15:265-268. 3. Schwab SJ, Quarles LD, Middleton JP, Cohan RH, Saeed M, Dennis VW. Hemodialysis-associated subclavian vein stenosis. Kidney Int. 1988;33:1156-1159. 4. Barrett N, Spencer S, McIvor J, Brown EA. Subclavian stenosis: a major complication of subclavian dialysis catheters. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 1988;3:423-425. 5. Al-Salman MMS, Rabee H, Abu-Isha H, et al. Central vein stenosis in patients with prior subclavian vein catheterization for Am J Kidney Dis. 2013;61(6):1001-1015 Central Vein Stenosis maintenance dialysis. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transplant. 1997;8: 119-122. 6. MacRae JM, Ahmed A, Johnson N, Levin A, Kiaii M. Central vein stenosis: a common problem in patients on hemodialysis. ASAIO J. 2005;51:77-81. 7. Agarwal AK, Patel BM, Farhan NJ. Central venous stenosis in hemodialysis patients is a common complication of ipsilateral central vein catheterization [abstract]. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2004;15: 368A-369A. 8. MacDonald MJ, Martin LG, Hughes JD, Kikeri D, Scout DC, Harker LA. Distribution and severity of stenoses in functioning arteriovenous grafts: a duplex and angiographic study. J Vasc Technol. 1996;20:131-136. 9. Naroienejad M, Saedi D, Rezvani A. Prevalence of central vein stenosis following catheterization in patients with end-stage renal disease. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transplant. 2010;21:975-978. 10. Taal MW. Chesterton IJ, McIntyre CW. Venography at insertion of tunneled internal jugular vein dialysis catheters reveals significant occult stenosis. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2004;19:15421545. 11. Morosetti M, Meloni C, Gandini R, et al. Late symptomatic venous stenosis in three hemodialysis patients without previous central venous catheters. Artif Organs. 2000;24:929-931. 12. Oguzkurt L, Tercan F, Yildirim S, Torun D. Central venous stenosis in hemodialysis patients without a previous history of catheter placement. Eur J Radiol. 2005;55:237-242. 13. Komodo A, Akimoto T, Kato M, et al. Central venous stenosis among hemodialysis patients is often not associated with previous central venous catheters. ASAIO J. 2011;57:439-443. 14. Kohl KH, Tan C. Central vein stenosis in end stage renal failure patients. J R Coll Physicians Edinb. 2005;35:116-122. 15. Hernandez D, Diaz F, Refine M, et al. Subclavian vascular access stenosis in dialysis patients: natural history and risk factors. J Am Soc Nephrol. 1998;9:1507-1510. 16. Schilling F, Schilling D, Montagne R, Millicent T. Post catheterization vein stenosis in hemodialysis: comparative angiographic study of 50 subclavian and 50 internal jugular accesses. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 1991;6:722-724. 17. Cimochowski GE, Worley E, Rutherford WE, Sartain J, Blondin J, Harter H. Superiority of the internal jugular over the subclavian access for temporary dialysis. Nephron. 1990;54:154161. 18. Oguzkurt L, Tercan F, Torun D, Yildirim T, Zum̈rü tidal A, Kizilkilic O. Impact of short-term hemodialysis catheters on the central veins: a catheter venographic study. Eur J Radiol. 2004;52: 293-299. 19. Jean G, Vanel T, Chazot C, Charra B, Terrat JC, Hurot JM. Prevalence of stenosis and thrombosis of central veins in hemodialysis after a tunneled jugular catheter. Nephrologie. 2001;22:501504. 20. Jassal SV, Pierratos A, Roscoe JM. Venous stenosis and thrombosis associated with the use of internal jugular vein catheters for hemodialysis. ASAIO J. 1999;45:356-359. 21. Forauer AR, Glockner JF. Importance of US findings in access planning during jugular vein hemodialysis catheter placements. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2000;11:233-238. 22. Wilkin TD, Krause MA, Lane KA, Trerotola SA. Internal jugular vein thrombosis associated with hemodialysis catheters. Radiology. 2003;228:697-700. 23. Salik E, Daftary A, Tal MG. Three-dimensional anatomy of the left central veins: implications for dialysis catheter placement. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2007;18:361-364. 24. Lobato EB, Sulek CA, Moody RL, Morey TE. Cross sectional area of the right and left internal jugular veins. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 1999;13:136-138. Am J Kidney Dis. 2013;61(6):1001-1015 25. Salgado OJ, Urdaneta B, Colmenares B, Garcia R, Flores C. Right versus left internal jugular vein catheterization for hemodialysis: complications and impact on ipsilateral access creation. Artif Organs. 2004;28:728-733. 26. Maxim I, Kraus MJ, Trerotola SO. Extrinsic compression of the left innominate vein in hemodialysis patients. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2004;15:51-56. 27. Illig KA. Management of central vein stenoses and occlusions: the critical importance of the costoclavicular junction. Semin Vasc Surg. 2011;24:113-118. 28. Hegarty J, Picton M, Chalmers N, Kalra PA. Iliac vein stenosis secondary to femoral catheter placement. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2001;16:1520-1521. 29. Wu X, Studer W, Skarvan K, Seeberger MD. High incidence of intravenous thrombi after short-term central venous catheterization of the internal jugular vein. J Clin Anesth. 1999;11: 482-485. 30. Grove JR, Pevec WC. Venous thrombosis related to peripherally inserted venous catheters. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2000;11:837840. 31. Ryder MA. Peripherally inserted central venous catheters. Nurs Clin North Am. 1993;28:937-971. 32. Allen AW, Megargell JL, Brown DB, et al. Venous thrombosis associated with placement of peripherally inserted central catheters. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2000;11:1309-1314. 33. Gonsalves CF, Eschelman DJ, Sullivan KL, DuBois N, Bonn J. Incidence of central vein stenosis and occlusion following upper extremity PICC and port placement. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2003;26:123-127. 34. El Ters M, Schears GJ, Taler SJ, et al. Association between prior peripherally inserted central catheters and lack of functioning arteriovenous fistulas: a case-control study in hemodialysis patients. Am J Kidney Dis. 2012;60:601-608. 35. Korzets A, Chagnac A, Ori Y, Katz M, Zevin D. Subclavian vein stenosis, permanent cardiac pacemakers and the haemodialysed patient. Nephron. 1991;58:103-105. 36. Chuang C, Tarng D, Yang W, Huang T. An occult cause of arteriovenous access failure: central vein stenosis from permanent pacemaker wire. Am J Nephrol. 2001;21:406-409. 37. Agarwal AK. Central vein stenosis: current concepts. Adv Chronic Kidney Dis. 2009;16:360-370. 38. Sticherling C, Chough SP, Baker RL, et al. Prevalence of central venous occlusion in patients with chronic defibrillator leads. Am Heart J. 2001;141:813-816. 39. Da Costa SS, Scalabrini Neto A, Costa R, et al. Incidence and risk factors of upper extremity deep vein lesions after permanent transvenous pacemaker implant: a 6-month follow-up prospective study. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2002;25:1301-1306. 40. Lickfett L, Bizen A, Arepally A, et al. Incidence of venous obstruction following insertion of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator. A study of systematic contrast venography on patients presenting for their first elective ICD generator replacement. Europace. 2004; 6:25-31. 41. Rozmus G, Daubert JP, Huang DT, Rosero S, Hall B, Francis C. Venous thrombosis and stenosis after implantation of pacemakers and defibrillators. J Interv Cardiac Electrophys. 2005; 13:9-19. 42. Oginosawa Y, Abe H, Nakashima Y. The incidence and risk factors for venous obstruction after implantation of transvenous pacing leads. PACE. 2002;25:1605-1611. 43. Drew DA, Meyer KB, Weiner DE. Transvenous cardiac device wires and vascular access in hemodialysis patients. Am J Kidney Dis. 2011;58(3):494-496. 44. Deighan CJ, McLaughlin KJ, Simipson K, Boulton JM. Unsuspected subclavian stenosis resulting from a permanent pacing wire. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 1996;11:2333-2334. 1013 Anil K. Agarwal 45. Teruya TH, Abou-Zamzam AM, Limm W, Wong L, Wong L. Symptomatic subclavian vein stenosis and occlusion in hemodialysis patients with transvenous pacemakers. Ann Vasc Surg. 2003;17:526-529. 46. Weiss MF, Scivittaro V, Anderson JM. Oxidative stress and increased expression of growth factors in lesions of failed hemodialysis access. Am J Kidney Dis. 2001;37:970-980. 47. Glanz S, Gordon DH, Lipkowitz GS, Butt KM, Hong J, Sclafani SJ. Axillary and subclavian vein stenosis: percutaneous angioplasty. Radiology. 1988;168:371-373. 48. Palabrica T, Lobb R, Furie BC, et al. Leukocyte accumulation promoting fibrin deposition is mediated by P-selectin on adherent platelets. Nature. 1992;359:848-851. 49. Weiss MF, Scivittaro V, Anderson JM. Oxidative stress and increased expression of growth factors in lesions of failed hemodialysis access. Am J Kidney Dis. 2001;37:970-980. 50. Vanherweghem JL, Yassine T, Goldman M, et al. Subclavian vein thrombosis: a frequent complication of subclavian vein cannulation for hemodialysis. Clin Nephrol. 1986;26:235-238. 51. Hoshal VL Jr, Ause RG, Hoskins PA. Fibrin sleeve formation on indwelling subclavian central venous catheters. Arch Surg. 1971;102:253-258. 52. Forauer AR, Theoharis CGA, Dasika NL. Jugular vein catheter placement: histologic features and development of catheterrelated (fibrin) sheaths in a swine model. Radiology. 2006;240:427434. 53. Raad I I, Luna M, Khalil SM, Costerton JW, Lam C, Bodey GP. The relationship between the thrombotic and infectious complications of central venous catheters. JAMA. 1994;271:1014-1016. 54. Kohler TR, Kirkman TR. Central venous catheter failure is induced by injury and can be prevented by stabilizing the catheter tip. J Vasc Surg. 1998;28:59-66. 55. Manderson J, Campbell GR. Venous response to endothelial denudation. Pathology. 1986;18:77-87. 56. Gray RJ, Dolmatch BL, Buick MK. Directional atherectomy treatment for hemodialysis access: early results. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 1992;3:497-503. 57. Forauer AR, Theoharis C. Histologic changes in the human vein wall adjacent to central venous catheters. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2003;14:1163-1168. 58. Agraharkar M, Isaacson S, Mendelssohn D, et al. Percutaneously inserted Silastic jugular hemodialysis catheters seldom cause jugular vein thrombosis. ASAIO J. 1995;41:169-172. 59. Beenen L, van Leusen R, Deenik B, Bosch FH. The incidence of subclavian vein stenosis using silicone catheters for hemodialysis. Artif Organs. 1994;18:289-292. 60. Di Costanzo J, Sastre B, Choux R, Kasparian M. Mechanism of thrombogenesis during total parenteral nutrition: role of catheter composition. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 1988;12:190-194. 61. Hernandez D, Dıaz F, Suria S, et al. Subclavian catheterrelated infection is a major risk factor for the late development of subclavian vein stenosis. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 1993;8:227-230. 62. Waheed U, Brown C, Haddad N, Van Cleef S, Agarwal A, Bhatt U. Central venous stenosis in systemic lupus erythematosus associated ESRD. Semin Dial. 2008;21:106-107. 63. Nazarian G, Bjarnason H, Dietz CA, Bernadas CA, Hunter DW. Changes in catheter tip position when a patient is upright. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 1997;8:437-441. 64. Paksoy Y, Genc BO, Genc E. Retrograde flow in the left inferior petrosal sinus and blood steal of the cavernous sinus associated with central vein stenosis: MR angiographic findings. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2003;24:1364-1368. 65. Lumsden AB, MacDonald MJ, Isiklar H, et al. Central venous stenosis in the hemodialysis patient: incidence and efficacy of endovascular treatment. Cardiovasc Surg. 1997;5:504-509. 1014 66. National Kidney Foundation. Dialysis Outcomes Quality Initiative: Clinical Practice Guidelines for Vascular Access. New York, NY: National Kidney Foundation; 1997:20-21. 67. Rose SC, Kinney TB, Bundens WP, Valji K, Roberts AC. Importance of Doppler analysis of transmitted atrial waveforms prior to placement of central venous access catheters. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 1998;9:927-934. 68. Labropoulos N, Borge M, Pierce K, et al. Criteria for defining significant central vein stenosis with duplex ultrasound. J Vasc Surg. 2007;46:101-107. 69. Kearon C, Kahn SR, Agnelli G, Goldhaber S, Raskob GE, Comerota AJ; American College of Chest Physicians. Antithrombotic therapy for venous thromboembolic disease: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8th edition). Chest. 2008;133:454S-545S. 70. Debourdeau P, Kassab Chahmi D, Le Gal G, et al; on behalf of the Working Group of the SOR. 2008 SOR guidelines for the prevention and treatment of thrombosis associated with central venous catheters in patients with cancer: report from the working group. Ann Oncol. 2009;20:1459-1471. 71. Paksoy Y, Gormus N, Tercan MA. Three-dimensional contrast enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (3-D CE-MRA) in the evaluation of hemodialysis access complications, and the condition of central veins in patients who are candidates for hemodialysis access. J Nephrol. 2004;7:57-65. 72. Chang CJ, Ko PJ, Hsu LA, et al. Highly increased cell proliferation activity in the restenotic hemodialysis vascular access after percutaneous transluminal angioplasty: implication in prevention of restenosis. Am J Kidney Dis. 2004;43:74-84. 73. Levit RD, Cohen RM, Kwak A, et al. Asymptomatic central venous stenosis in hemodialysis patients. Radiology. 2006;238: 1051-1056. 74. Aruny JE, Lewis CA, Cardella JF, et al; Society of Interventional Radiology Standards of Practice Committee. Quality improvement guidelines for percutaneous management of the thrombosed or dysfunctional dialysis access. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2003;14(9 Pt 2):S247-S253. 75. Miller GA, Friedman A, Khariton A, Jotwani MC, Savransky Y. Long thoracic vein embolization for the treatment of breast edema associated with central venous occlusion and venous hypertension. J Vasc Access. 2010;11:115-121. 76. National Kidney Foundation. Guideline 20. K/DOQI Clinical Practice Guidelines for Vascular Access, 2000. Am J Kidney Dis. 2001;37(suppl 1):S137-S181. 77. Beathard GA. Percutaneous transvenous angioplasty in the treatment of vascular access stenosis. Kidney Int. 1992;42:1390-1397. 78. Kovalik EC, Newman GE, Suhocki P, Knelson M, Schwab SJ. Correction of central venous stenoses: use of angioplasty and vascular Wallstents. Kidney Int. 1994;45:1177-1181. 79. Quinn SF, Schuman ES, Demlow TA, et al. Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty versus endovascular stent placement in the treatment of venous stenosis in patients undergoing hemodialysis: intermediate results. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 1995;5:851-855. 80. Dammers R, de Haan MW, Planken NR, van der Sande FM, Tordoir JHM. Central vein obstruction in hemodialysis patients: results of radiological and surgical intervention. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2003;26:317-321. 81. Surowiec SM, Fegley AJ, Tanski WJ, et al. Endovascular management of central venous stenoses in the hemodialysis patient: results of percutaneous therapy. Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2004; 38:349-354. 82. Bakken AM, Protack CD, Saad WE, Lee DE, Waldman DL, Davies MG. Long-term outcomes of primary angioplasty and primary stenting of central venous stenosis in hemodialysis patients. J Vasc Surg. 2007;45:776-783. Am J Kidney Dis. 2013;61(6):1001-1015 Central Vein Stenosis 83. Beathard GA. The treatment of vascular access graft dysfunction: a nephrologist’s view and experience. Adv Ren Replace Ther. 1994;1:131-147. 84. Buriankova E, Kocher M, Bachleda P, et al. Endovascular treatment of central venous stenoses in patients with dialysis shunts. Biomed Papers. 2003;147:203-206. 85. Davidson CJ, Newman GE, Sheikh KH, et al. Mechanisms of angioplasty in hemodialysis fistula stenoses evaluated by intravascular ultrasound. Kidney Int. 1991;40(1):91-95. 86. Gunther RW, Vorwerk D, Bohndorf K, et al. Venous stenoses in dialysis shunts: treatment with self-expanding metallic stents. Radiology. 1989;170:401-405. 87. Aruny JE, Lewis CA, Cardella JF, et al. Quality improvement guidelines for percutaneous management of the thrombosed or dysfunctional dialysis access. Standards of Practice Committee of the Society of Cardiovascular & Interventional Radiology. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2003;14(9 Pt 2):S247-S253. 88. Yevzlin AS. Hemodialysis catheter-associated central venous stenosis. Semin Dial. 2008;21:522-527. 89. Gray RJ, Horton KM, Dolmatch BL, et al. Use of Wallstents for hemodialysis access-related venous stenoses and occlusions untreatable with balloon angioplasty. Radiology. 1995;195:479-484. 90. Haage P, Vorwerk D, Piroth W, Schuermann K, Guenther RW. Treatment of hemodialysis-related central venous stenosis or occlusion: results of primary Wallstent placement and follow-up in 50 patients. Radiology. 1999;212:175-180. 91. Maya ID, Saddekhi S, Allon M. Treatment of refractory central vein stenosis in hemodialysis patients with stents. Semin Dial. 2006;20:78-82. 92. Vogel PM, Parise C. SMART stent for salvage of hemodialysis access grafts. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2004;15:1051-1060. 93. Trerotola SO, Fair JH, Davidson D, et al. Comparison of Gianturco Z stents and Wallstents in a hemodialysis access graft animal model. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 1995;6:387-396. 94. Verstandig AG, Bloom AI, Sasson T, Haviv YS, Rubinger D. Shortening and migration of Wallstents after stenting of central venous stenoses in hemodialysis patients. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2003;26:58-64. 95. Chen CY, Liang HL, Pan HB, et al. Metallic stenting for treatment of central venous obstruction in hemodialysis patients. J Chin Med Assoc. 2003;66:166-172. 96. Oderich GS, Treiman GS, Schneider P, Bhirangi K. Stent placement for treatment of central and peripheral venous obstruction: a long-term multi-institutional experience. J Vasc Surg. 2000;32:760-769. 97. Kundu S. Review of central venous disease in hemodialysis patients. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2010;21:963-968. 98. Sapoval MR, Turmel-Rodrigues LA, Raynaud AC, Bourquelot P, Rodrigue H, Gaux JC. Cragg covered stents in hemodialysis access: initial and midterm results. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 1996;7: 335-342. 99. Farber A, Barbey MM, Grunert JH, Gmelin E. Accessrelated venous stenoses and occlusions: treatment with percutaneous transluminal angioplasty and Dacron-covered stents. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 1999;22:214-218. 100. Jones RG, Willis AP, Jones C, McCafferty IJ, Riley PL. Long-term results of stent-graft placement to treat central venous stenosis and occlusion in hemodialysis patients with arteriovenous fistulas. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2011;22:1240-1245. 101. Kundu S, Modabber M, You JM, Tam P, Nagai G, Ting R. Use of PTFE stent grafts for hemodialysis-related central venous occlusions: intermediate-term results. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2011;34:949-957. Am J Kidney Dis. 2013;61(6):1001-1015 102. Anaya-Ayala JE, Smolock CJ, Colvard BD, et al. Efficacy of covered stent placement for central venous occlusive disease in hemodialysis patients. J Vasc Surg. 2011;54:754-759. 103. Ozyer U, Harman A, Yildirim E, Aytekin C, Karakayali F, Boyvat F. Long-term results of angioplasty and stent placement for treatment of central venous obstruction in 126 hemodialysis patients: a 10-year single-center experience. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193:1672-1679. 104. Kim YC, Won JY, Choi SY, et al. Percutaneous treatment of central venous stenosis in hemodialysis patients: long-term outcomes. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2009;32:271-278. 105. Bakken AM, Protack CD, Saad WE, Lee DE, Waldman DL, Davies MG. Long-term outcomes of primary angioplasty and primary stenting of central venous stenosis in hemodialysis patients. J Vasc Surg. 2007;45:776-783. 106. Katzman HE, McLafferty RB, Ross JR, Glickman MH, Peden EK, Lawson JH. Initial experience and outcome of a new hemodialysis access device for catheter-dependent patients. J Vasc Surg. 2009;50:600-607. 107. Asif A, Salman L, Carrillo RG, et al. Patency rates for angioplasty in the treatment of pacemaker-induced central venous stenosis in hemodialysis patients: results of a multicenter study. Semin Dial. 2009;22:671-676. 108. Saad TF, Myers GR, Cicone J. Central vein stenosis or occlusion associated with cardiac rhythm management device leads in hemodialysis patients with ipsilateral arteriovenous access: a retrospective study of treatment using stents or stent-grafts. J Vasc Access. 2010;11:293-302. 109. Baddour LM, Epstein AE, Erickson CC, et al. Update on cardiovascular implantable electronic device infections and their management: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2010;121:458-477. 110. Wilkoff BL, Love CJ, Byrd CL, et al. Transvenous lead extraction: Heart Rhythm Society expert consensus on facilities, training, indications, and patient management: this document was endorsed by American Heart Association. Heart Rhythm. 2009;6: 1085-1104. 111. Asif A, Carrillo R, Juan-Domingo G, et al. Epicardial cardiac rhythm devices for dialysis patients: minimizing the risk of infection and preserving central veins. Semin Dial. 2012;25(1):8894. 112. Jennings WC, Miller GA, Coburn MZ, Howard CA, Lawless MA. Vascular access flow reduction for arteriovenous fistula salvage in symptomatic patients with central venous occlusion. J Vasc Access. 2012;13(2):157-162. 113. Currier CB Jr, Widder S, Ali A, et al. Surgical management of subclavian and axillary vein thrombosis in patients with a functioning arteriovenous fistula. Surgery. 1986;100:25-28. 114. Anaya-Ayala JE, Bellows PH, Ismail N, et al. Surgical management of hemodialysis-related central venous occlusive disease: a treatment algorithm. Ann Vasc Surg. 2011;25:108-119. 115. Pisoni RL, Young EW, Dykstra DM, et al. Vascular access use in Europe and the United States: results from the DOPPS. Kidney Int. 2002;16:305-316. 116. Cooper BA, Branley P, Bulfone L, et al. A randomized, controlled trial of early versus late initiation of dialysis. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:609-619. 117. Falk A. Use of the brachiocephalic vein for placement of tunneled hemodialysis catheters. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;187: 773-777. 118. Kwok PC, Wong KM, Ngan RK, et al. Prevention of recurrent central venous stenosis using endovascular irradiation following stent placement in hemodialysis patients. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2001;4:400-406. 1015