• Chick Jeffrey Forris Beecham JFB 1 Department of Radiology, Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, University of Michigan Health System, 1500 E Medical Center, Steven D Abramowitz, Matthew L Osher, Minhaj S Khaja, Kyle J Cooper, Wael E Saad, and David M Williams.
• 1 Department of Radiology, Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, University of Michigan Health System, 1500 E Medical Center Dr, Ann Arbor, MI 48109.
• AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017 Nov 1; 209 (5): 1150-1157.

ObjectiveThe objective of our study was to describe an association between the radiographic appearance of distressed intravascular implants and venous stenosis or occlusion and to determine the success of reparative endovascular procedures.Materials And MethodsSeventy-eight patients with distressed stents or inferior vena cava (IVC) filters characterized by pursing (short-axis contracture), straightening, longitudinal contraction (long-axis contracture), or fracture were identified from retrospective review of a venous registry for the period from February 2004 to October 2016. Patients originally presented with superior vena cava (SVC) syndrome (n = 25), arm swelling (n = 16), iliocaval thrombosis (n = 21), and lower extremity deep venous thrombosis (n = 16), and stents were initially placed in 65 and filters in 13. Implants were located in the IVC (n = 24), subclavian vein (n = 16), brachiocephalic vein (n = 15), common iliac vein (n = 10), multiple veins (n = 4), axillary vein (n = 4), common femoral vein (n = 3), SVC (n = 1), and internal jugular vein (n = 1). Implants included Wallstents in 63 patients; Smart stents in two patients; and Celect Platinum, Denali, Greenfield, and Trapease IVC filters in two, three, two, and six patients, respectively. Venographic indication, distress type, time from initial normal placement to identification of distress, venographic finding (patent, mild stenosis, high-grade stenosis, or occlusion), treatment, revascularization outcome, and complications were recorded.ResultsThe mean time to distress was 23 months. Fifty-two (67%) patients underwent venography for symptoms and 26 (33%) for surveillance. Forty-five (58%) implants were pursed; 19 (24%), straightened; nine (12%), contracted; and five (6%), fractured. Venography depicted 48 (62%) high-grade stenoses, 19 (24%) complete occlusions, and six (8%) mild stenoses. Of the 73 patients who underwent an intervention, 29 (40%) underwent angioplasty, 15 (21%) underwent angioplasty and stenting, 15 (21%) underwent sharp recanalization, and five (7%) underwent thrombolysis. Revascularization was successful in 67 (92%). Three minor complications occurred.ConclusionDistressed intravascular implants are associated with high-grade venous stenosis or occlusion. Reparative interventions are usually technically successful.

31 keywords...

hide…