Stent Placement After Percutaneous Recanalization of Superior Vena Cava Stenosis in Maintenance Hemodialysis Patients

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of stent placement after percutaneous recanalization of superior vena cava (SVC) stenosis in maintenance hemodialysis patients. Methods: Adult maintenance hemodialysis patients hospitalized at a university-affiliated tertiary hospital due to SVC stenosis from January 2016 to June 2023 were prospectively included. The efficacy and safety of percutaneous blunt/sharp SVC recanalization combined with SVC stent placement were observed. The patients’ demographic information and laboratory examination data, stent placement success rate, surgery-related complications, and long-term vascular access patency rate were also recorded and analyzed. The study was approved by the institutional ethics committee (2015-201) and registered at http://www.chictr.org.cn (registry number: ChiCTR-ONN-16007790). Results: A total of 58 patients were included in the study with an average age of 54.79±13.42 years. Percutaneous SVC recanalization was successful in 53 cases, with a success rate of 91.38%, including 37 cases of traditional recanalization and 16 cases of sharp recanalization. Among 53 hemodialysis patients who underwent SVC recanalization, 14 patients successfully received covered stents and 38 patients received bare metal stents, achieving a stent placement success rate of 98.1%. One patient encountered stent displacement into the heart immediately after implantation, causing intra-operative cardiac tamponade, who was successfully rescued by thoracotomy. Fifty-two patients were followed-up for median period of 26 months (cuffed catheter: 25 patients, arteriovenous fistula [AVF]: 27 patients). The overall 2-year vascular access patency rate was 33.2% (cuffed catheter: 22.2%, AVF: 41.7%, p=0.414). There was no statistically significant difference in the 2-year vascular access patency rate between the traditional recanalization group and the sharp recanalization group (34.1% vs 31.1%, p=0.731) and between bare metal stent group and covered stent group (38.1% vs 21.4%, p=0.248). Conclusion: Percutaneous SVC recanalization with stent placement is an effective treatment strategy that can provide viable vascular access for maintenance hemodialysis patients with SVC stenosis. Cautions should be paid to potential life-threatening complications such as stent displacement and cardiac tamponade. Clinical Impact Superior vena cava (SVC) stenosis is a common central venous occlusive lesion in maintenance hemodialysis patients. Whether stent should be implanted simultaneously following SVC recanalization is still lacking research. This pilot cohort study suggested that percutaneous SVC recanalization with stent placement was an effective treatment strategy which provides satisfactory vascular access for hemodialysis. We further found that SVC sharp recanalization with subsequent stent implantation was a feasible treatment, with the 2-year vascular access patency comparable to the traditional SVC recanalization group. This study also highlighted endovascular SVC recanalization should be performed with caution, and appropriate balloon sizes should be selected to avoid SVC rupture or stent displacement.