CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology

, Volume 42, Issue 2, pp 205–212 | Cite as

Approach, Technical Success, Complications, and Stent Patency of Sharp Recanalization for the Treatment of Chronic Venous Occlusive Disease: Experience in 123 Patients

  • Joseph L. McDevitt
  • Ravi N. Srinivasa
  • Joseph J. Gemmete
  • Anthony N. Hage
  • Rajiv N. Srinivasa
  • Jacob J. Bundy
  • Jeffrey Forris Beecham ChickEmail author
Clinical Investigation Venous Interventions
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Venous Interventions



To report the technical success and complications following sharp recanalization of chronic venous occlusions.

Materials and Methods

A total of 123 patients, including 75 (61.0%) men and 48 (39.0%) women, with mean age of 50.5 ± 17.5 years (range 19–90 years), underwent sharp recanalization of chronic venous occlusions. The etiologies of occlusion were chronic deep venous thrombosis (n = 43; 35.0%), prior central venous access (n = 39; 31.7%), indwelling cardiac leads (n = 21; 17.1%), and occluded venous stents (n = 20; 16.3%). The sites of venous occlusion included 59/123 (48.0%) thoracic central veins, 37 (30.1%) non-thoracic central veins, and 27 (22.0%) peripheral veins. Median length of occlusion was 3.2 ± 1.4 cm (range 1.3–10.9 cm).


Sharp recanalization was most commonly attempted with transseptal needles in 108/123 (87.8%), with a mean number of 1.2 ± 0.4 crossing devices per patient (range 1–4 devices). Targeting devices included a loop snare (n = 92; 74.8%), partially deployed Wallstent (n = 21; 17.1%), partially deployed Amplatzer vascular plug (n = 8; 6.5%), and an angioplasty balloon (n = 3; 2.4%). Technical success was achieved in 111 (90.2%) patients. There were 3 (2.4%) severe, 1 (0.8%) moderate, and 7 (5.7%) minor adverse events. Severe adverse events included 1 case each of pericardial tamponade, hemothorax, and inferior vena cava filter occlusion. 88 (71.5%) patients had venous stents placed; at the last follow-up examination, 68/86 (79.0%) stents were patent.


Sharp recanalization has a high technical success and low rate of adverse events in the recanalization of chronic venous occlusions.


Chronic venous occlusion Chronic venous occlusive disease Central venous occlusion Sharp recanalization Transseptal needle Venous reconstruction 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

This study has obtained Institutional Review Board Approval, and the need for informed consent was waived.

Supplementary material

270_2018_2090_MOESM1_ESM.docx (31 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 31 kb)


  1. 1.
    Kundu S. Central venous obstruction management. Semin Intervent Radiol. 2009;26(2):115–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lumsden AB, MacDonald MJ, et al. Central venous stenosis in the hemodialysis patient: incidence and efficacy of endovascular treatment. Cardiovasc Surg. 1997;5(5):504–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Allen AW, Megargell JL, et al. Venous thrombosis associated with the placement of peripherally inserted central catheters. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2000;11(10):1309–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Raju S. Best management options for chronic iliac vein stenosis and occlusion. J Vasc Surg. 2013;57(4):1163–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Agarwal AK, Patel BM, Haddad NJ. Central vein stenosis: a nephrologist’s perspective. Semin Dial. 2007;20(1):53–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cohen EI, Beck C, et al. Success rate and complications of sharp recanalization for treatment of central venous occlusions. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol. 2018;41(1):73–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goo DE, Kim YJ, et al. Use of a Rösch-Uchida needle for recanalization of refractory dialysis-related central vein occlusion. Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194(5):1352–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hanauer DA, Mei Q, et al. Supporting information retrieval from electronic health records: a report of University of Michigan’s nine-year experience in developing and using the Electronic Medical Record Search Engine (EMERSE). J Biomed Inform. 2015;55:290–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dolmatch BL, Gurley JC, et al. Society of interventional radiology reporting standards for thoracic central vein obstruction. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2018;29(4):454–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Williams DM. Iliocaval reconstruction in chronic deep vein thrombosis. Technol Vasc Interv Radiol. 2014;17(2):109–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Khaja MS, Chick JFB, et al. Fluoroscopic targeting of wallstents and amplatzer vascular plugs in sharp recanalization of chronic venous occlusions. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol. 2017;40(11):1777–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chick JFB, Jo A, et al. Endovascular iliocaval stent reconstruction for inferior vena cava filter-associated iliocaval thrombosis: approach, technical success, safety, and two-year outcomes in 120 patients. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2017;28(7):933–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Khalilzadeh O, Baerlocher MO, et al. Proposal of a new adverse event classification by the society of interventional radiology standards of practice committee. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2017;28(10):1432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gupta H, Murphy TP, Soares GM. Use of a puncture needle for recanalization of an occluded right subclavian vein. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol. 1998;21(6):508–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Murphy TP, Webb MS. Percutaneous venous bypass for refractory dialysis-related subclavian vein occlusion. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 1998;9(6):935–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Miyayama S, Minami T, et al. Small needle puncture of a central venous occlusion in a hemodialysis patient that could not be traversed by a conventional technique. Cardiovasc Interv Ther. 2014;29(3):261–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lang EV, Vrachliotis TG, Brophy DP. Sharp recanalization for chronic central venous occlusions. Tech Vasc Interv Radiol. 2000;3(1):21–8.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ferral H, Bjarnason H, et al. Recanalization of occluded veins to provide access for central catheter placement. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 1996;7(5):681–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Beathard GA, Eradat J. Chronically occluded arteriovenous fistula salvaged by sharp needle recanalization. Semin Dial. 2015;28(6):E58–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Athreya S, Scott P, et al. Sharp recanalization of central venous occlusions: a useful technique for haemodialysis line insertion. Br J Radiol. 2009;82(974):105–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Honnef D, Wingen M, et al. Sharp central venous recanalization by means of a TIPS needle. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol. 2005;28(5):673–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ito N, Isfort P, et al. Sharp recanalization for chronic left iliac vein occlusion. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol. 2012;35(4):938–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Guimaraes M, Schonholz C, et al. Radiofrequency wire for the recanalization of central vein occlusions that have failed conventional endovascular techniques. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2012;23(8):1016–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Davis RM, David E, et al. Radiofrequency guide wire recanalization of venous occlusions in patients with malignant superior vena cava syndrome. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol. 2012;35(3):676–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Malik AK, Bhalla N, et al. Percutaneous reconstruction of chronic total occlusion of brachiocephalic vein using transseptal needle in dialysis-dependent patient. Cardiovasc Interv Ther. 2016;31(2):136–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Arabi M, Ahmed I, et al. Sharp central venous recanalization in hemodialysis patients: a single-institution experience. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol. 2016;39(6):927–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Porter D, Rundback JH, Miller S. Sharp recanalization using a subintimal reentry device, angioplasty, and stent placement for severely symptomatic iliofemoral deep venous thrombosis secondary to congenital aplasia of the inferior vena cava. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2010;21(11):1765–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joseph L. McDevitt
    • 1
  • Ravi N. Srinivasa
    • 2
  • Joseph J. Gemmete
    • 3
  • Anthony N. Hage
    • 4
  • Rajiv N. Srinivasa
    • 3
  • Jacob J. Bundy
    • 3
  • Jeffrey Forris Beecham Chick
    • 5
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Radiology, Division of Vascular and Interventional RadiologyThe University of Texas Southwestern Medical CenterDallasUSA
  2. 2.Department of Interventional RadiologyUniversity of California Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA
  3. 3.Department of Radiology, Division of Vascular and Interventional RadiologyUniversity of Michigan Health SystemAnn ArborUSA
  4. 4.Department of SurgeryThomas Jefferson University HospitalPhiladelphiaUSA
  5. 5.Department of Cardiovascular and Interventional RadiologyINOVA Alexandria HospitalAlexandriaUSA

Personalised recommendations