Indian Journal of Urology Users online:3560  
IJU
Home Current Issue Ahead of print Editorial Board Archives Symposia Guidelines Subscriptions Login 
Print this page  Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2016  |  Volume : 32  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 141-148

Management of venous hypertension following arteriovenous fistula creation for hemodialysis access


1 Department of Urology and Kidney Transplant, Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India
2 Department of Transplant Surgery and Urology, Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India
3 Department of Radio Diagnosis, Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India

Correspondence Address:
Aneesh Srivastava
Department of Transplant Surgery and Urology, Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Rae Barely Road, Lucknow - 226 014, Uttar Pradesh
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0970-1591.174779

Rights and Permissions

Introduction: Venous hypertension (VH) is a distressing complication following the creation of arteriovenous fistula (AVF). The aim of management is to relieve edema with preservation of AVF. Extensive edema increases surgical morbidity with the loss of hemodialysis access. We present our experience in management of VH. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted on 37 patients with VH managed between July 2005 to May 2014. Patient demographics, evaluation, and procedures performed were noted. A successful outcome of management with surgical ligation (SL), angioembolization (AE), balloon dilatation (BD) or endovascular stent (EVS) was defined by immediate disappearance of thrill and murmur with resolution of edema in the next 48-72 h, no demonstrable flow during check angiogram and resolution of edema with preservation of AVF respectively. Results: All 8 distal AVF had peripheral venous stenosis and were managed with SL in 7 and BD in one patient. In 29 proximal AVF, central and peripheral venous stenosis was present in 16 and 13 patients respectively. SL, AE, BD, and BD with EVS were done in 18, 5, 4, and 3 patients, respectively. All patients had a successful outcome. SL was associated with wound related complications in 11 (29.73 %) patients. A total of 7 AVF were salvaged. One had restenosis after BD and was managed with AE. BD, EVS, and AE had no associated morbidity. Conclusions: Management of central and peripheral venous stenosis with VH should be individualized and in selected cases it seems preferable to secure a new access in another limb and close the native AVF in edematous limb for better overall outcome.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed2868    
    Printed75    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded139    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

 

HEALTHWARE INDIA