TY - JOUR
AU - Blankestijn, Peter J.
AB - Abstract Background. Percutaneous thrombolysis has become an accepted treatment of thrombosed haemodialysis grafts. Several devices have been developed for mechanical thrombolysis, which macerate the clot using different mechanisms such as aspiration and fragmentation. The aim of our study was to compare the efficacy of three devices for mechanical thrombolysis in removing the thrombus from thrombosed haemodialysis access grafts and to determine the initial technical and clinical success, complication rates of each device, and graft patency after the procedure. Methods. Thrombolysis (i.e. clot removal followed by percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA)) was performed in 68 thrombosed haemodialysis grafts using the Cragg brush catheter combined with urokinase in 13, the Hydrolyser in 18 and the Arrow‐Trerotola Percutaneous Thrombolytic Device (PTD) in 37. Clot removal scores (CRS, the ability to thoroughly remove clot from the access), initial technical success, clinical success, patency at 30, 60, and 90 days, and complication rates were evaluated. Results. CRS for the Cragg brush, Hydrolyser and PTD were good in 92, 44, and 95% of cases, respectively. Initial technical (85, 83, and 95%) and clinical success (62, 67, and 86%), mean patency rates at 30 (73, 60, and 55%), 60 (61, 53, and 49%), and 90 (49, 40, and 43%) days, stenosis after PTA (33, 46, and 21%) and complication rates (8, 6, and 0%) were not different for the three devices. Success rates and graft patency depended on the effect of PTA, irrespective of the device used. Conclusions. The rotational devices removed clots more effectively than the Hydrolyser, with the PTD having the advantage of not requiring urokinase. However, the result of PTA in the treatment of underlying stenoses was the only predictive value for graft patency. dialysis shunts, interventional procedures, PTFE, thrombolysis, thrombosis, vascular access, veins Introduction Percutaneous thrombolysis has become an accepted treatment of thrombosed haemodialysis grafts [1]. A number of techniques have been described. In pharmacological thrombolysis a lytic agent such as streptokinase or urokinase is administered intravenously or directly into the graft. With pulse‐spray pharmaco‐mechanical thrombolysis, lysis is accelerated by injecting the lytic agent into the clot, using a dedicated multi‐side hole infusion catheter. More recently, devices have been developed for mechanical thrombolysis, which macerate the clot using different mechanical actions such as aspiration and fragmentation without the use of a lytic agent. Comparison of the efficacy of these devices is difficult. Most studies report on a single device only. Thrombolytic devices may be effective in removing thrombus material, however, they do not treat the underlying causes of clot formation, i.e. stenoses compromising blood flow [2–6]. Often, patency rates are given as a measure for determining efficacy of mechanical devices. However, patency of a graft after mechanical thrombolysis is likely to depend on the result of the treatment of the underlying stenoses [7,8], and clot removal is only part of the treatment. Comparison of reported procedure times and complication rates is also difficult because the methods vary among institutions, and differences in study results are therefore difficult to assess. Over the last 4 years, we applied three techniques for the thrombolysis of haemodialysis grafts using mechanical devices for clot removal. The goal of our study was to compare the efficacy of each method in removing a thrombus from haemodialysis access grafts and to determine the initial technical and clinical success, complication rates of each device, and graft patency after the procedure. Patients and methods Patients All patients with a thrombosed vascular access graft were eligible to enter the study. Informed consent was obtained from all patients and the study was approved by the institute's Medical Ethical Committee. In its original design it was a prospective study to evaluate the efficacy of the rotating brush catheter. However, when this device was withdrawn by the manufacturer, a second (the hydrodynamic catheter) and later a third device (rotating basket catheter) were prospectively examined. Clot removal procedures All procedures were performed with the crossed catheter technique [9]. Access puncture was performed under local anaesthesia with lidocaine 2%. A guide wire was advanced and navigated across the venous anastomosis. Subsequently, a sheath was introduced towards the venous anastomosis (venous sheath). In contrast, agent injection through a straight catheter, the central venous outflow tract and venous anastomosis of the graft were evaluated for the presence of stenoses. Also, the central end of the thrombus was determined. A second sheath was then introduced towards the arterial anastomosis (arterial sheath). The actual thrombus treatment was then initiated using one of the following mechanical devices (chronological order). Rotating brush catheter (Cragg brush) The first mechanical device exploited was the Cragg brush catheter (Cragg Thrombolytic Brush, Micro Therapeutics, San Clemente, CA, USA). Before employing the Cragg brush catheter 125000 IU of urokinase mixed with 5000 IU heparin in 20 ml saline was injected into the clotted graft with the pulse‐spray technique using a multi‐side hole infusion catheter (Cook Inc, Bloomington, IN, USA) [10]. During slow withdrawal of the brush and catheter, an additional 125000 IU of urokinase mixed with 60 ml of 1:1 diluted iodinated contrast agent (30 ml per limb) were administered through a sidearm of the catheter, allowing real time visualization of clot fragmentation and subsequent restoration of the graft lumen. When the Cragg brush was temporarily withdrawn from clinical tests because of technical problems, we started to use a hydrodynamic catheter. Hydrodynamic catheter (Hydrolyser) The second device we employed for mechanical thrombolysis was a hydrodynamic catheter (Hydrolyser, Cordis Europa NV, Roden, The Netherlands). The Hydrolyser consisted of a 7‐F double‐lumen catheter with a 6‐mm side hole at the tip [11,12]. Saline was injected with a power injector through the smaller of the two lumens. The resultant high‐velocity jet was directed retrogradely in the catheter, along the side hole into a wider discharge channel. Because of the resultant underpressure (Venturi effect) the thrombus was aspirated into the side hole, fragmented, and evacuated via the discharge channel. Any residual clot was removed by repeated passes with the Hydrolyser. We stopped using this device because often clot removal was incomplete, which at that time was thought to be of relevance. Rotating basket catheter (PTD) In the third period, mechanical thrombolysis was performed with a rotating basket (Arrow‐Trerotola Percutaneous Thrombolytic Device (PTD), Arrow International, Reading, PA, USA). The PTD incorporates a self‐expandable basket made of Nitinol wires, attached to a drive cable. It was described in detail previously [13,14]. The PTD was introduced in its closed position through the sheaths. The PTD was rotated by a handheld disposable motor unit at 3000 r.p.m. and slowly withdrawn. Any residual clot was removed by repeated PTD passes or, if unsuccessful, by mobilization of residual clot using a slightly inflated balloon catheter. Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty procedure Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) was performed immediately following mechanical thrombolysis when a stenosis greater than 50% of the vessel diameter was present. We routinely used 6‐mm diameter balloon catheters (Opta, Cordis Europa NV) for intra‐graft stenoses. For PTA at the anastomoses, the size of the balloon was adapted to the size of the artery and vein. Balloon catheters were inflated at a maximum pressure of 12 ATM. Attempts were made to achieve the greatest stenosis reduction possible. In case of recoil, repeated PTA was performed with an oversized balloon. When the balloon did not unfold because of rigidity of the stenosis, a non‐compliant high‐pressure balloon was used with pressures up to 20 ATM. (Blue Max, Boston Scientific Corporation, Watertown, MA, USA). Angiography was performed at the end of each procedure. Patients were scheduled for additional angiography and PTA within 2 weeks after the procedure, in case flow in the graft was restored only moderately because of considerable residual thrombus and/or unsatisfactory effect of balloon dilation. Definitions Success of treatment was assessed by angiography. Using a two‐point scale, the clot removal score (CRS) allowed discrimination between complete (successful) clot removal (minimal to no residual clot, CRS=1) and incomplete clot removal (considerable residual thrombus material, CRS=0). Minimal residual clot was defined as non‐circumferential wall‐adherent thrombus involving only a small portion (one‐third or less) of the graft. Any clot greater than minimal was graded as considerable. Initial technical success was defined as the restoration of flow within the graft at the end of the procedure, thus after clot removal and PTA. This criterion was met when a test bolus of iodinated contrast material disappeared rapidly with the blood stream. Clinical success was defined as at least one successful haemodialysis session using the graft after mechanical thrombolysis. PTA results were measured on hardcopy images. For intra‐graft stenoses and stenoses at the anastomoses, the diameter in the stenosis was compared with the diameter of the graft. For native vein stenoses, the diameter in the stenosis was compared with the diameter of a non‐stenotic part of the vein. Stenoses with a diameter reduction of more than 50% were treated with PTA. The result of PTA was expressed as the per cent residual stenosis after PTA. When more than one stenosis was present, the part with the highest grade of residual stenosis was taken for residual stenosis rate of that graft. Major complications were defined as: major bleeding necessitating surgery or transfusion, symptomatic pulmonary or arterial embolization, severe contrast agent reaction, injury to the graft necessitating surgery, and mechanical defects of the device affecting technical success [17]. Minor complications were defined as: minor contrast agent reaction, adverse reactions to urokinase, asymptomatic arterial or pulmonary embolization, self‐limited haematomas treated by local compression, and mechanical defects of the device that did not affect technical success. Total procedure time was defined as the time from beginning of local anaesthesia, given at initiation of the procedure until completion of haemostasis, applied to the graft at the end of the procedure. Primary patency rate was defined as the percentage of grafts that functioned well without any additional intervention for graft failure. Follow‐up time was censored for patients who died or were otherwise lost to follow‐up and patients who received a kidney transplant. Statistical methods The difference in proportion with successful clot removal was calculated, including 95% confidence intervals (CI). Ordinal data were analysed by means of χ2 tests. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to assess the independent association of various clinical parameters. Primary patency was studied using Kaplan–Meier survival curves. Differences in the patency rates were tested using the log rank test. In addition, Cox's proportional hazards model was used to analyse primary patency in relation to the various clinical parameters comparable with the multivariate analysis of clinical success. Procedure time in relation to number of stenoses per graft was analysed using Pearson's correlation coefficient. Results Between January 1996 and January 2000, 73 consecutive cases (60 patients) with a thrombosed haemodialysis access graft were referred for thrombolysis. In five of the 73 cases, the procedure was ended before clot removal had begun, as the venous anastomosis (n=4) or the arterial anastomosis (n=1) could not be passed with a guide wire. Mechanical thrombolysis was performed in the remaining 68 cases (55 patients) (Table 1). Thirty‐eight of the 68 access sites were PTFE grafts (Gore‐Tex; Gore, Flagstaff, AZ, USA) and 30 were homologous vein grafts (Varivas; Vascogref BV, Bussum, The Netherlands) (Table 1). In 67 of 68 cases, mechanical thrombolysis was completed. In one case, clot removal was terminated because of technical failure of the device. In 66 of 67 cases, PTA followed clot removal. In the remaining case there was no identifiable stenosis requiring PTA. The mean period grafts had been functioning was 15 months (range 3–60 months). Thrombolysis was performed between 8 h and 2 weeks after diagnosing graft thrombosis, and in the vast majority (50 cases) treatment was started within 24 h. Clot removal Clot removal scores are shown in Table 2. The rotational devices had a similar clot removal score. Both performed significantly (P<0.05) better than the non‐rotational device. CRS was not associated with initial technical success (P=0.72). In univariate analysis, CRS seemed to have a significant association with clinical success (odds ratio 4.3, 95% CI 1.2–16). Using multivariate regression analysis, however, the association between residual clot material and clinical success could not be confirmed. Cox proportional hazard analysis revealed no relation between clot removal score and primary patency. Table 1.  Number, type and location of grafts with distribution per device       Device               Total     Cragg brush     Hydrolyser     PTD     Number of grafts  68    13    18    37    Number of patients  55    13    14    28      Vein*  PTFE+  Vein*  PTFE+  Vein*  PTFE+  Vein*  PTFE+  Type of graft  30  38  11   2  13   5   6  31  Location of grafts                     Forearm loop  25  28  11  –   9  2   5  26     Upper arm loop   3   2  –  –   3  –  –   2     Axillo‐axillary   c   6  –  2  –  3  –   1     Forearm straight   2   2  –  –   1  –   1   2        Device               Total     Cragg brush     Hydrolyser     PTD     Number of grafts  68    13    18    37    Number of patients  55    13    14    28      Vein*  PTFE+  Vein*  PTFE+  Vein*  PTFE+  Vein*  PTFE+  Type of graft  30  38  11   2  13   5   6  31  Location of grafts                     Forearm loop  25  28  11  –   9  2   5  26     Upper arm loop   3   2  –  –   3  –  –   2     Axillo‐axillary   c   6  –  2  –  3  –   1     Forearm straight   2   2  –  –   1  –   1   2  *Vein, homologous vein graft; +PTFE, polytetrafluoroethylene. View Large Table 2.  Results of mechanical thrombolysis by device   Device         Cragg brush   Hydrolyser   PTD   Clot removal score*           1  92% (11/12)+  44% (8/18)  95% (35/37)     0  8% (1/12)  56% (10/18)  5% (2/37)  Initial technical success  85% (11/13)  83% (15/18)  95% (35/37)     CI†  55–98%  59–96%  82–99%  Clinical success 62%  (8/13) 67%  (12/18) 86%  (32/37)     CI  32–86%  41–87%  71–96%  Patency at: 30 days  67%±14‡  50%±12  52%±8           60 days  56%±15  39%±12  46%±8           90 days  44%±16  33%±11  40%±8  Mean procedure time (min)  118±27  132±16  119±43     Range  80−150  105−150  70−168  Major complications  8% (1/13)  6% (1/18)  0%  Minor complications  31% (4/13)  56% (10/18)  43% (16/37)  Mean number of stenoses per grafts  2.2  2.5  1.9    Device         Cragg brush   Hydrolyser   PTD   Clot removal score*           1  92% (11/12)+  44% (8/18)  95% (35/37)     0  8% (1/12)  56% (10/18)  5% (2/37)  Initial technical success  85% (11/13)  83% (15/18)  95% (35/37)     CI†  55–98%  59–96%  82–99%  Clinical success 62%  (8/13) 67%  (12/18) 86%  (32/37)     CI  32–86%  41–87%  71–96%  Patency at: 30 days  67%±14‡  50%±12  52%±8           60 days  56%±15  39%±12  46%±8           90 days  44%±16  33%±11  40%±8  Mean procedure time (min)  118±27  132±16  119±43     Range  80−150  105−150  70−168  Major complications  8% (1/13)  6% (1/18)  0%  Minor complications  31% (4/13)  56% (10/18)  43% (16/37)  Mean number of stenoses per grafts  2.2  2.5  1.9  Thirteen brush procedures; in one procedure the brush broke off, so 12 clot removal scores remained. For calculation of success rates and patency, the broken brush was considered as a failure. *CRS 1, minimal to no residual thrombus. CRS 0=considerable residual thrombus. +Numbers of patients are given in parentheses. †CI=95% confidence interval. ‡Standard error of the mean. View Large Initial technical success and clinical success Cragg brush Initial technical success was achieved in 11 (85%) of the 13 patients (Table 2). In one case the brush broke off before clot removal was completed and in another case blood flow could not be restored because of bleeding complications after clot removal. Successful haemodialysis after mechanical thrombolysis could be performed in eight patients, indicating a clinical success rate of 62%. In three of the 11 patients with initial technical success, re‐occlusion of the grafts occurred before the first post‐procedural haemodialysis following mechanical thrombolysis could be performed. Hydrolyser Initial technical success was reached in 83% (15 of 18 cases). In the remaining three, restoration of blood flow could not be achieved because of a long rigid stenosis in the native vein of the upper arm, which was resistant to PTA (n=1); a 60% residual stenosis with a small dissection after PTA at the arterial anastomosis (n=1); and bleeding complications during mechanical thrombolysis that was performed 1 day after shunt revision (n=1). In three of the remaining 15 cases with initial technical success, re‐occlusion of the grafts occurred before the first haemodialysis following mechanical thrombolysis could be performed, resulting in a clinical success rate of 67% (12 of 18 cases). In all three cases a new graft was implanted. PTD Initial technical success was 95% (35 of 37 cases). In one of the two unsuccessful cases, restoration of blood flow could not be achieved due to a rigid stenosis at the arterial anastomosis resistant to PTA, and in the other one there was occlusion of the graft by overlapping sheaths and residual white clot material. In three of the 35 cases with initial technical success, re‐occlusion of the grafts occurred before the first post‐procedural haemodialysis could be performed, resulting in a clinical success rate of 86% (32 of 37 cases). Using multivariate logistic regression analysis and Cox's regression analysis, respectively, no association was found between type of device used and clinical success and between type of device used and primary patency. Distribution and treatment of stenoses A total of 142 stenoses were encountered in 67 grafts treated. Sixty‐two of the 67 grafts showed a stenosis at the venous anastomosis (93%) and 29 at the arterial anastomosis (43%). Twenty‐three (34%) were located in the upper arm and central vein and 28 stenoses were in the graft itself (42%). The mean number of stenoses was 1.8 in the PTFE group and 2.5 in the homologous vein group. The mean number of vascular stenoses per graft in the Cragg brush group, the Hydrolyser group, and the PTD group were 2.2, 2.5, and 1.9, respectively. In 14 of 67 cases, the PTA of the underlying stenosis resulted in residual stenosis of more than 50% (mean 75% residual stenosis, range 55–99% residual stenosis). Six of seven procedures with initial technical failure were found in the last group. Seven cases were scheduled for control angiography because of unsatisfactory results due to the presence of residual clot and/or stenosis after the procedure. Four of these cases showed clinical evidence of re‐occlusion within 24 h. These were not re‐entered in the study. The other three cases were evaluated with angiography 6–14 days after the procedure. All three showed complete resolution of residual clot. One of the three showed 60% residual stenosis, which was treated with PTA. One case showed 55% residual stenosis, which was not treated and one showed no residual stenosis. Independent of the type of device used, multiple logistic regression analysis showed a strong relationship between residual stenosis and clinical success (odds ratio 0.92, 95% CI 0.87–0.96). Cox's regression analysis also showed that residual stenosis was the only parameter that determined follow‐up. Complications Cragg brush One major complication occurred: the brush broke from its drive cable at the curve of the loop graft during withdrawal of the brush. The loose brush was retrieved using a goose‐neck catheter with successive graft damage. Four minor complications included rupture of the venous anastomosis after PTA (n=1), asymptomatic retrograde arterial embolism, which was treated with additional local urokinase infusion (n=1), and spontaneous haematomas occurred in two cases at previously used puncture sites for haemodialysis. These haematomas were treated with manual compression. Hydrolyser One patient had symptomatic, scintigraphically proven pulmonary embolism. Minor complications occurred in 10 cases. These included seven patients with a total of nine haematomas. Two of these nine haematomas were caused by unsuccessful needle punctures of the graft at the beginning of the procedure. Three of the nine haematomas occurred at PTA sites. In three patients asymptomatic retrograde arterial emboli were seen at control angiography after mechanical thrombolysis. These three patients showed no clinical signs; the emboli were not treated and there were no long‐term sequelae. PTD No major complications occurred in the 37 cases treated with the PTD. Minor complications occurred in 16 with nine of those experiencing minor bleeding. In four of these nine cases, there were haematomas at prior puncture sites. In the remaining five, minor bleeding occurred at the site of balloon dilation, which were treated by local manual compression. Minor mechanical problems with the device occurred in seven cases. In three of these, one of the wires of the PTD broke at the proximal connection. A broken wire hampered withdrawal of the PTD in the covering catheter. After cutting the damaged catheter near the introductory sheath, the intravascular part could be retrieved through an additional sheath, which was introduced in the opposite flow direction. In two cases, the 5‐F guiding catheter, in which the PTD was housed, wrinkled near the motor unit and in two other cases the cover catheter broke. These mechanical defects occurred mainly in the first half of the procedures and were less common after the manufacturer had modified the basket and its housing catheter. Procedure time As shown in Table 2 procedure times were comparable for each type of device. Length of the procedure as such was mainly determined by the number of stenoses (r=0.47). Patency rates Mean survival time was 144±31 days (median 59 days). Ten patients were lost to follow‐up, of which six had died. Five of these six died as a result of unrelated disease 6–790 days after the procedure with an intact shunt. One patient died 4 days after mechanical thrombolysis due to sepsis, which was thought to be related to central catheters, but may also have been related to shunt infection. Four patients were censored because of renal transplant, 22–377 days after the procedure. Figure 1 shows the Kaplan–Meier survival curves of each device (P=NS). Primary patency rates are shown in Table 2. For all procedures, primary patency rates were 53±6% at 30 days, 46±6% at 60 days, and 39±6% at 90 days. Using Cox's proportional hazard model, long‐term patency rates were significantly related to residual stenosis (hazard ratio 1.025, 95% CI 1.009–1.041), meaning that each per cent of rest stenosis induces a risk for graft failure of 2.5% (CI 0.9–4.1%) per day. Patency rates were not related to type of device nor to clot removal score. Fig. 1.  View largeDownload slide Kaplan–Meier survival curves of mechanical thrombolysis using the Cragg Brush, the Hydrolyser and the PTD. The curves were not significantly different. Fig. 1.  View largeDownload slide Kaplan–Meier survival curves of mechanical thrombolysis using the Cragg Brush, the Hydrolyser and the PTD. The curves were not significantly different. Discussion This study shows that the rotating devices performed significantly better than the Hydrolyser in removing a thrombus from haemodialysis access grafts. When applying the Cragg brush or the PTD, the original contour of the graft wall was restored. Removal of thrombus with the aid of the Hydrolyser often resulted in an irregular lumen with residual thrombus material adherent to the wall. The most likely explanation for the superior clot removal scores that the rotating devices achieved is that both use the same principle of a self‐expanding wall‐contact mechanism, in which the device is centred in the vessel lumen with the device's hairs or wires rubbing against the vessel wall to remove the clot [15]. The main action of the Hydrolyser, however, is exerted through the side hole of the catheter, often resulting in removal of only the clot facing the side hole and leaving the remaining clot in place. As a result, thrombus removal achieved with the Hydrolyser frequently is incomplete. Vesely et al. [15] showed similar results with respect to thrombus removal between the different devices. However, no patency rates were given for their thrombolysis procedures. Using univariate analysis, we found that successful clot removal seemed to be associated with clinical success. However, after adjusting for residual stenosis, the association with clot removal could not be confirmed. In addition, there was no association between clot removal and long‐term patency. These results add to the discussion of the relevance of residual thrombus in the graft after clot removal [16,17]. Large fragments of residual clot will obstruct the lumen and hamper initial technical success. These large fragments can easily be identified and removed using additional mechanical thrombolysis or by means of the balloon catheter. Small amounts of residual clot appeared to be insignificant because they disappeared completely 1–2 weeks after treatment. This refers to the inherent thrombolytic capability of the normal bloodstream and is probably the result of adequate restoration of blood flow through the graft. PTA adds substantially to initial technical success [4,18]. In our study, using Cox's regression analysis, residual stenosis after PTA appeared to be the single, most important factor predictive of primary patency after mechanical thrombolysis. Therefore, we believe that the main goal of a mechanical thrombolysis procedure should be adequate reduction of stenosis with subsequent restoration of blood flow. Clot removal is a sine qua non, but the presence of small amounts of residual thrombus seems to be insignificant because they are likely to be cleared by the bloodstream. Each device appeared to be relatively safe to use in our experience although the number of procedures per device was relatively small. Major complications were rare with no clear relation to type of device. In one of our group of 68 cases, there were clinical signs of pulmonary embolism, which was confirmed with scintigraphy. The number of minor complications was relatively high, however, occurring in 31 to 56% of the cases and comparable for each device group. There were four patients (6%) in whom asymptomatic arterial embolism was identified, the first of whom was treated with intra‐arterial infusion of urokinase. The following three patients with asymptomatic arterial embolism were not treated and none developed late sequelae. Distal arterial mapping was not routinely performed and, thus, the true incidence of arterial embolism may have been higher. It is well recognized that, in many instances, pulmonary or arterial embolism occurs after mechanical thrombolysis without becoming clinically evident. In a previous study it was shown that in 35% of patients who had undergone the procedure, there was scintigraphic evidence of new pulmonary emboli, although almost all of these patients were asymptomatic [19]. In another series of patients who underwent surgical thrombectomy, arterial embolization was found in eight (12%) of the cases. In only one of the eight cases was the condition symptomatic [20]. A limitation of our study is that we did not randomize the application of the three devices throughout the patient population. Each device was used at a different period of time, according to its availability during the course of the study. Another shortcoming is that the type of graft changed during the course of the study as the surgeons who created the grafts changed their primary choice of graft material from homologous vein to PTFE. This lead to an unbalanced distribution of graft types among the various treatment groups. However, in the calculation of success, we used type of graft as one of the parameters in the multivariate analysis and found that graft type did not affect the results. In conclusion, in our evaluation of three mechanical devices used to declot thrombosed haemodialysis access grafts, we found that the success of mechanical thrombolysis was determined more by the success of PTA of underlying stenoses than by the results of clot removal. The rotating devices performed significantly better than the Hydrolyser in removing thrombus from haemodialysis access grafts. The effectiveness of the two rotating devices was comparable. Correspondence and offprint requests to: Peter J. Blankestijn, Department of Nephrology, Room F 03.226, University Medical Center, Heidelberglaan 100, NL‐3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands. Email: P.J.Blankestijn@digd.azu.nl Dr J. H. M. Smits was supported by a grant from the Dutch Kidney Foundation (C97.1643). References 1 Gray RJ. Percutaneous intervention for permanent hemodialysis access: a review. J Vasc Interv Radiol  1997; 8: 313–327 Google Scholar 2 Kanterman RY, Vesely TM, Pilgram TK et al. Dialysis access grafts: anatomic location of venous stenosis and results of angioplasty. Radiology  1995; 195: 135–139 Google Scholar 3 Beathard GA. Mechanical versus pharmacomechanical thrombolysis for the treatment of thrombosed dialysis access grafts. Kidney Int  1994; 45: 1401–1406 Google Scholar 4 Smith TP, Cragg AH, Castaneda F, Hunter DW. Thrombosed polytetrafluoroethylene hemodialysis fistulas: salvage with combined thrombectomy and angioplasty. Radiology  1989; 171: 507–508 Google Scholar 5 Smits JHM, Blankestijn PJ. Thrombosis‐free hemodialysis grafts: a possibility for the next century? Semin Dial  1999; 12: 44–49 Google Scholar 6 Blankestijn PJ, Smits JH. How to identify the haemodialysis access at risk of thrombosis? Are flow measurements the answer? Nephrol Dial Transplant  1999; 14: 1068–1071 Google Scholar 7 Sharafuddin MJ, Hicks ME. Current status of percutaneous mechanical thrombectomy. Part I. General principles. J Vasc Interv Radiol  1997; 8: 911–921 Google Scholar 8 Beathard GA. Percutaneous transvenous angioplasty in the treatment of vascular access stenosis. Kidney Int  1992; 42: 1390–1397 Google Scholar 9 Trerotola SO, Lund GB, Scheel PJ Jr et al. Thrombosed dialysis access grafts: percutaneous mechanical declotting without urokinase. Radiology  1994; 191: 721–726 Google Scholar 10 Castaneda F, Wyffels PL, Patel JC et al. New thrombolytic brush catheter in thrombosed polytetrafluoroethylene dialysis grafts: preclinical animal study. J Vasc Interv Radiol  1998; 9: 793–798 Google Scholar 11 Vorwerk D, Schurmann K, Muller‐Leisse C et al. Hydrodynamic thrombectomy of haemodialysis grafts and fistulae: results of 51 procedures. Nephrol Dial Transplant  1996; 11: 1058–1064 Google Scholar 12 Pattynama PM, van Baalen J, Verburgh CA, van der Pijl JW, Schultze Kool LJ. Revascularization of occluded haemodialysis fistulae with the Hydrolyser thrombectomy catheter: description of the technique and report of six cases. Nephrol Dial Transplant  1995; 10: 1224–1227 Google Scholar 13 Trerotola SO, Vesely TM, Lund GB et al. Treatment of thrombosed hemodialysis access grafts: Arrow‐Trerotola percutaneous thrombolytic device versus pulse‐spray thrombolysis. Arrow‐Trerotola Percutaneous Thrombolytic Device Clinical Trial. Radiology  1998; 206: 403–414 Google Scholar 14 Lazzaro CR, Trerotola SO, Shah H et al. Modified use of the Arrow‐Trerotola Percutaneous Thrombolytic Device for the treatment of thrombosed hemodialysis access grafts. J Vasc Interv Radiol  1999; 10: 1025–1031 Google Scholar 15 Vesely TM, Hovsepian DM, Darcy MD, Brown DB, Pilgram TK. Angioscopic observations after percutaneous thrombectomy of thrombosed hemodialysis grafts. J Vasc Interv Radiol  2000; 11: 971–977 Google Scholar 16 Overbosch EH, Pattynama PM, Aarts HJ et al. Occluded hemodialysis shunts: Dutch multicenter experience with the hydrolyser catheter. Radiology  1996; 201: 485–488 Google Scholar 17 Turmel‐Rodrigues L, Sapoval M, Pengloan J et al. Manual thromboaspiration and dilation of thrombosed dialysis access: mid‐term results of a simple concept. J Vasc Interv Radiol  1997; 8: 813–824 Google Scholar 18 National Kidney Foundation. K/DOQI clinical practice guidelines for vascular access. Am J Kidney Dis  2001; 37 [Suppl 1]: S137–S181 Google Scholar 19 Smits HF, Van Rijk PP, Van Isselt JW et al. Pulmonary embolism after thrombolysis of hemodialysis grafts. J Am Soc Nephrol  1997; 8: 1458–1461 Google Scholar 20 Trerotola SO, Johnson MS, Shah H, Namyslowski J, Filo RS. Incidence and management of arterial emboli from hemodialysis graft surgical thrombectomy. J Vasc Interv Radiol  1997; 8: 557–562 Google Scholar European Renal Association–European Dialysis and Transplant Association
TI - Percutaneous thrombolysis of thrombosed haemodialysis access grafts: comparison of three mechanical devices
JF - Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation
DO - 10.1093/ndt/17.3.467
DA - 2002-03-01
UR - https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/oxford-university-press/percutaneous-thrombolysis-of-thrombosed-haemodialysis-access-grafts-VT7e0HaU80
SP - 467
EP - 473
VL - 17
IS - 3
DP - DeepDyve
ER -