Long-term results of stent-graft placement to treat central venous stenosis and occlusion in hemodialysis patients with arteriovenous fistulas.

PURPOSE: To determine the effectiveness of stent-grafts for the treatment of central venous disease in hemodialysis patients with functioning arteriovenous (AV) fistulas. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between October 2004 and March 2010, 42 VIABAHN stent-grafts were deployed in central veins of 30 patients (16 men, 14 women; mean age 60 y) with functioning AV fistulas and central venous disease that did not respond to percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA). Eighteen patients had central vein stenosis and 12 had occlusion. Previous PTA and/or bare metal stent placement had been performed in 23 patients (77%). Surveillance was carried out at 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, and 24 months with diagnostic fistulography. The mean follow-up was 705 days (range, 66-1,645 d). Statistical analysis included Kaplan-Meier and log-rank studies. RESULTS: Technical success rate was 100%. Primary patency rates were 97%, 81%, 67%, and 45% at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively. Primary assisted patency rates were 100%, 100%, 80%, and 75% at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively. Patients without previous procedures had significantly shorter times to repeat intervention (P = .018) than those who had undergone PTA or bare metal stent placement previously. Patients with occlusive lesions had a significantly shorter primary patency interval (P = .05) than patients with stenoses. Occluded veins were more likely to require further stent-grafts (P = .02). Twelve patients required further stent-grafts to maintain patency. There was one minor complication. CONCLUSIONS: Stent-graft placement to treat central venous disease in hemodialysis patients with autogenous AV fistulas is safe and effective if PTA fails to maintain luminal patency.

Cross-sectional study of the provision of interventional oncology services in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: To map out the current provision of interventional oncology (IO) services in the UK. DESIGN: Cross-sectional multicentre study. SETTING: All National Health Service (NHS) trusts in England and Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland health boards. PARTICIPANTS: Interventional radiology (IR) departments in all NHS trusts/health boards in the UK. RESULTS: A total of 179 NHS trusts/health boards were contacted. We received a 100% response rate. Only 19 (11%) institutions had an IO lead. 144 trusts (80%) provided IO services or had a formal pathway of referral in place for patients to a recipient trust. 21 trusts (12%) had plans to provide an IO service or formal referral pathway in the next 12 months only. 14 trusts (8%) did not have a pathway of referral and no plans to implement one. 70 trusts (39%) offered supportive and disease-modifying procedures. One trust had a formal referral pathway for supportive procedures. 73 trusts (41%) provided only supportive procedures (diagnostic or therapeutic). Of these, 43 (59%) had a referral pathway for disease-modifying IO procedures, either from a regional cancer network or through IR networks and 30 trusts (41%) did not have a referral pathway for disease-modifying procedures. CONCLUSION: The provision of IO services in the UK is promising; however, collaborative networks are necessary to ensure disease-modifying IO procedures are made accessible to all patients and to facilitate larger registry data for research with commissioning of new services.