4.0 Review

What predicts outcome after recanalization of chronic venous obstruction: hemodynamic factors, stent geometry, patient selection, anticoagulation or other factors?

Journal

PHLEBOLOGY
Volume 29, Issue -, Pages 97-103

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0268355514529510

Keywords

Venous recanalization; endophlebectomy; post-thrombotic syndrome; chronic venous obstruction; outcome after venous recanalization

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this review we evaluated the effect of different suggested factors associate with the outcome after recanalization of chronic venous obstruction (CVO). Hemodynamic factors:Based upon literature no clear suggestions can be made to identify the risk of stent occlusion in association with the hemodynamic effects. However it is evident that ensuring optimal in- and outflow of the stented tract is key in maintaining the patency. Patient selection:Noninvasive imaging modalities are used to divide patients in three subgroups based on the place and extension of post-thrombotic changes. Moreover it should be noted that AV fistula in selected patients can reduce the risk of thrombosis or re-occlusion. Geometry:Excessive oversizing of the stent and stent compression from outside are considered to be associated with stent occlusion. Additionally, overlapping rigid stents, unnatural angel between stents and in-stent kinking are other geometrical factors related to worse outcome after venous recanalization. Anticoagulation:Adequate peri-and postoperative anticoagulation has a crutial role in stent patency. There is no data regarding the duration of anticoagulation therapy and recommendations vary between 6 weeks to 6 months. Result:impaired inflow or outflow, presence of a hypercoagulability, total number of treated segments and use of stents designed for implantation in arterial system are associated with decreased stent patency.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available