Abstract: One of complications of using hemodialysis catheters is stenosis or occlusion of central veins. This may cause dysfunction of an ipsilateral arteriovenous fistula in the future. Despite of high restenosis rate - balloon angioplasty is a method of choice. Materials and methods: we present a case report of successful recanalization and balloon angioplasty of left brachiocephalic vein in a patient, undergoing chronic hemodialysis with a functioning arteriovenous fistula on left forearm . Results: the absence of restenosis during a year is an evidence of the effectiveness of this methoc as a treatment of central vein stenosis or occlusion in order to preserve and increase duration of use of permanent vascular access. References
1. Beljaev A.Ju., Kudrjavceva E.S. Rol' vrachej nefrologicheskih i gemodializnyh otdelenij v obespechenii postojannogo sosudistogo dostupa dlja gemodializa[The role of physicians of nephrology and hemodialysis departments in ensuring of permanent vascular access for hemodialysis]. Nefrologija i dializ. 2007; 9(3): 224-227 [In Russ].
2. Hernandez D., Diaz F., Rufino M., Lorenzo V. et al. Subclavian vascular access stenosis in dialysis patients: natural history and risk factors. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 998; 9 (8): 1507-1510.
3. Cimochowski G.E., Worley E., Rutherford W.E., Sartain J. et al. Superiority of the internal jugular over the subclavian access for temporary dialysis. Nephron. 1990; 54 (2): 154-161.
4. Barrett N., Spencer S., Mclvor J., Brown E.A. Subclavian stenosis: a major complication of subclavian dialysis catheter. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 1988; 3 (4): 423-425.
5. Chan M.R., Yevzlin A.S., Asif A. Vascular Access for the General Nephrologist. Nova Science Publishers, Inc (US). 2013; 423. 6. Surratt R.S., Picus D., Hicks M.E., Darcy M.D. et al. The importance of preoperative evaluation of the subclavian vein in dialysis access planning. AJR Am.J. Roentgenol. 1991; 156 (3): 623-625. 7. Dheeraj K. Rajan. Essentials of Percutaneous Dialysis Interventions. Springer. 2011; 604. 8. McNally PG., Brown C.B., Moorhead PJ., Raftery A.T. Unmasking of subclavian vein obstruction following creation of arteriovenous fistulae for haemodialysis. A problem following subclavian line dialysis? Nephrol Dial Transplant. 1987; 1 (4): 258-260. 9. Abbasi M., Soltani G., Karamroudi A., Javan H. Superior Vena Cava Syndrome Following Central Venous Cannulation. International Cardiоvascular Research Journal. 2009; 3 (3): 172-174. 10. KDOQI Clinical Practice Guidelines and Clinical Practice Recommendations for 2006 Updates: Hemodialysis Adequacy, Peritoneal Dialysis Adequacy and Vascular Access. Am. J. Kidney Dis. 2006; 48 (suppl 1): S1-S322. 11. Kundu S. Central venous obstructionmanagement. Semin Intervent Radiol. 2009; 26(2): 115-121. 12. Scott O. Trerotola. Venous Interventions. Society of Cardiovascular & Interventional Radiology (SCVIR). 1995; 556.
Abstract: Backgroud: endovascular implantation of the aortic stent-graft is a method of choice in treatment of aneurysms of the infrarenal abdominal aorta, especially in patients with high surgical risk.This strategy is characterized as less in-hospital complications, shorter in-hospital stay All these circumstances show some advantages of endovascular treatment compared with traditional «open» surgery. Besides that, there are some limitations for aortic endoprosthesis implantation, including short or conical proximal neck, severe angulation of aneurysmatic neck and tortuosity of arteries, insufficient diameter of iliac-femoral segment arteries for stent-graft delivery Materials and methods: we report two clinical cases of successsful implantation of novel stent-graft OVATION PRIME in patients with adverse anatomy, precisely small diameter of crossing profile and original technology of proximal fixation of endoprosthesis. Results: the use of innovative models of stent-grafts allows to proceed aortic endoprosthesis implantation with minimal risk of complications in certain patients with adverse vascular anatomy, who were previously deemed unsuitable for endovascular treatment. References 1. Jackson R.S., Chang D.C. Comparison of long-term survival after open vs endovascular repair of intact abdominal aortic aneurysm among Medicare beneficiaries. JAMA. 2012; 307: 1621-1628. 2. Logevrove R.E., Javid M., Magee T.R., Galland R.B. A meta-analysis of 21,178 patient undergoing open or endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. Br. J. Surg. 2008; 95:677-684. 3. Brewster D.C., Cronenwett J.L., Hallett J.W. Jr, Johnston K.W., Krupski W.C., Matsumura J.S. Guidelines for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms. Report of a subcommittee of the Joint Council of the American Association for Vascular Surgery and Society for Vascular Surgery. J. Vasc.Surg. 2003;37:1106-17. 4. Greenhalgh R.M., Brown L.C., Powell J.T., Thompson S.G., Epstein D., Sculpher M.J. Endovascular versus open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. N. Engl. J. Med. 2010;362:1863-71. 5. Lederle F.A., Freischlag J.A., Kyriakides T.C., Padberg F.T. Jr, Matsumura J.S., Kohler T.R., et al. Outcomes following endovascular vs open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2009; 302:1535-42. 6. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP). Available at: http://ahrg.gov/data/hcup/. Accessed September 26, 2012. 7. Arko F.R. Filis K.A., Seidel S.A., Gonzalez J., Lengle S.J., Webb R., et al. How many patients with infrarenal aneurysms are candidates for endovascular repair? The Northern California experience. J. Endovasc Ther. 2004;11:33-40. 8. Armon M.P., Yusuf S.W. Latief K., Whitaker S.C., Gregson R.H., Wenham P.W., et al. Anatomical suitability of abdominal aortic aneurysms for endovascular repair. Br. J. Surg. 1997;84:178-80. 9. Carpenter J.P., Baum R.A, Barker C.F., Golden M.A. Mitchell M.E., Velazquez O.C., et al. Impact of exclusion criteria on patient selection for endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. J. Vasc.Surg. 2001;34: 1050-4. 10. Elkouri S., Martelli E., Gloviczki P., McKusick M.A. Panneton J.M., Andrews J.C., et al. Most patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm are not suitable for endovascular repair using currently approved bifurcated stent-grafts. Vasc. Endovascular. Surg. 2004;38:401-12. 11. Moise M.A., Woo E.Y, Velazquez O.C., Fairman R.M., Golden M.A., Mitchell M.E., et al. Barriers to endovascular aortic aneurysm repair: past experience and implications for future device development. Vasc. Endovascular. Surg. 2006;40:197-203. 12. Schumacher H., Eckstein H.H., Kallinowski F., Allenberg J.R. Morphometry and classification in abdominal aortic aneurysms: patient selection for endovascular and open surgery. J. Endovasc.Surg. 1997;4:39-44. 13. Mehta M., Byrne W.J., Robinson H., Roddy S.P, Paty PS., Kreienberg P.B., et al. Women derive less benefit from elective endovascular aneurysm repair than men. J. Vasc. Surg. 2010;55:906-13. 14. Morrison T., Fillinger M., Meyer C., et al. Gender disparities in endovascular treatment options for infrarenal abdominal aortic аneurysms. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/NewsEvents/Workshops Conferences/UCM359044.pdf. Published June 25, 2013. Accessed June 20, 2014. 15. AbuRahma A.F., Campbell J., Stone PA., et al. The correlation of aortic neck length to early and late outcomes in endovascular aneurysm repair patients. J. Vasc. Surg. 2009;50:738-748. 16. Aburahma A.F., Campbell J.E., Mousa A.Y, et al. Clinical outcomes for hostile versus favorable aortic neck anatomy in endovascular aortic aneurysm repair using modular devices. J. Vasc.Surg. 2011;54:13-21. 17. Sweet M.P, Fillinger M.F., MorrisonT.M., Abel D. The influence of gender and aortic aneurysm size on eligibility for endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. J. Vascular Surg. 2011; 54:931-7.
