Search

Purpose: To determine if stent placement across the renal vein inflow affects kidney function and renal vein patency. Methods: Between June 2008 and September 2016, 93 patients (mean age 39 years, range 15–70; 54 women) with iliocaval occlusion underwent venous stent placement and were retrospectively reviewed. For this analysis, the patients were separated into treatment and control groups: 51 (55%) patients had suprarenal and infrarenal iliocaval venous disease requiring inferior vena cava stent reconstruction across the renal vein inflow (treatment group) and 42 (45%) patients had iliac vein stenting sparing the renal veins (control group). Treatment group patients received Wallstents (n=15), Gianturco Z-stents (n=24), or suprarenal and infrarenal Wallstents such that the renal veins were bracketed with a “renal gap” (n=12). Stenting technical success, stent type, glomerular filtration rate (GFR), and creatinine before and after stent placement were recorded, along with renal vein patency and complications. Results: All procedures were technically successful. In the 51-patient treatment group, 15 (29%) patients received Wallstents and 24 (47%) received Gianturco Z-stents across the renal veins, while 12 (24%) were given a “renal gap” with no stent placement directly across the renal vein inflow. In the control group, 42 patients received iliac vein Wallstents only. Mean prestent GFR was 59±1.8 mL/min/1.73 m2 and mean prestent creatinine was 0.8±0.2 mg/dL for the entire cohort. Mean prestent GFR and creatinine values in the Wallstent, Gianturco Z-stent, and “renal gap” subgroups did not differ from the iliac vein stent group. Mean poststent GFR and creatinine values were 59±3.3 mL/min/1.73 m2 and 0.8±0.3 mg/dL, respectively. There were no differences between mean pre- and poststent GFR (p=0.32) or creatinine (p=0.41) values when considering all patients or when comparing the treatment subgroups and the control group. There were no differences in the poststent mean GFR or creatinine values between the Wallstent (p=0.21 and p=0.34, respectively) and Gianturco Z-stent (p=0.43 and p=0.41, respectively) groups and the “renal gap” group. One patient with a Wallstent across the renal veins developed right renal vein thrombosis 7 days after the procedure. Conclusion: Stent placement across the renal vein inflow did not compromise renal function. A very small risk of renal vein thrombosis was seen.

Resection of the inferior vena cava (IVC) is a rare surgical technique that is occasionally combined with nephrectomy in the setting of renal malignancy with intravascular tumor extension. While this may be fairly well tolerated in some patients due to extensive collateralization in the venous system, there is a clear potential for lower extremity venous insufficiency and deep vein thrombosis (DVT). This report describes a patient who underwent right nephrectomy and segmental IVC resection from the subhepatic space to the iliac confluence, which was complicated by profoundly symptomatic lower extremity DVT and gastrointestinal hemorrhage due to system-to-portal shunting. After performing sharp recanalization through the retroperitoneum, iliocaval reconstruction was accomplished utilizing covered stent-grafts, with complete resolution of symptoms.Level of Evidence Case Report, Level 5.

In the setting of portal hypertension, the body responds by creating portosystemic venous shunts, which may lead to the development of varices. Endoscopic treatment of these varices is often warranted to prevent catastrophic bleeding. During the course of variceal treatment, 1 or more portosystemic shunts may be sacrificed, which may acutely exacerbate portal hypertension and reduce systemic venous return. This report describes percutaneous creation of a mesocaval shunt and balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration (BRTO) in a patient with cavernous transformation of the portal vein. The patient had previously undergone an unsuccessful attempt at transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) creation with postoperative bleeding requiring splenectomy. As TIPS was not feasible, creation of a percutaneous mesocaval shunt provided an alternate pathway for portosystemic decompression, facilitating safe treatment of gastric varices with BRTO via a gastrorenal shunt. These procedures were performed simultaneously to reduce the risk of variceal bleeding from acute changes in portal venous pressures and redirect blood flow through the shunt to maintain patency. This is the first reported case of combined mesocaval shunt placement and BRTO in a single session.