Incidence and complications of accidental cannulation of retroperitoneal veins during venography for inferior vena cava filter placement

Gunvir Gill, Satoru Morita, Takashi Kitanosono, Adam Fang, David Lee, David Waldman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the incidence and complications of accidental cannulation of retroperitoneal veins during venography for inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement. Methods: In total, 641 patients who underwent IVC filter placement were retrospectively reviewed. Incidence of accidental cannulation of retroperitoneal veins during venography (using 633 sheaths and 18 catheters, including 11 pigtail type and 7 end-hole-type catheters), along with the associated complications, were evaluated. Results: The overall frequency of accidental cannulation of retroperitoneal veins was 5.4% (35 of 651) via venous approaches: 5.8% (24 of 411) via a right femoral approach, 3.9% (5 of 129) via a left femoral approach, and 5.4% (6 of 111) via a jugular approach. The most frequent veins cannulated were the ascending lumbar veins (4.6%, 25 of 540) via a femoral approach, and the median sacral vein (3.6%, 4 of 111) via a jugular approach. No significant difference in the frequency of accidental cannulation was observed between venography through sheaths and catheters (5.4% [n = 34] vs. 5.6% [n = 1; using an end-hole-type catheter]; P = 1.000). Injuries to 5 veins (0.8%), including 3 ascending lumbar veins, were observed. Inadvertent filter placement within the right ascending lumbar vein was observed in 1 patient (0.2%). Conclusions: Accidental cannulation of retroperitoneal veins during venography for IVC filter placement is an infrequent occurrence, and in this patient series did not result in negative clinical outcomes. However, operators should be aware of the risk of accidental cannulation to prevent avoidable complications such as venous injury or filter misplacement.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)767-773
Number of pages7
JournalAnnals of Vascular Surgery
Volume27
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 2013
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Vena Cava Filters
Phlebography
Catheterization
Veins
Incidence
Catheters
Thigh
Neck
Wounds and Injuries

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
  • Surgery

Cite this

Incidence and complications of accidental cannulation of retroperitoneal veins during venography for inferior vena cava filter placement. / Gill, Gunvir; Morita, Satoru; Kitanosono, Takashi; Fang, Adam; Lee, David; Waldman, David.

In: Annals of Vascular Surgery, Vol. 27, No. 6, 08.2013, p. 767-773.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Gill, Gunvir ; Morita, Satoru ; Kitanosono, Takashi ; Fang, Adam ; Lee, David ; Waldman, David. / Incidence and complications of accidental cannulation of retroperitoneal veins during venography for inferior vena cava filter placement. In: Annals of Vascular Surgery. 2013 ; Vol. 27, No. 6. pp. 767-773.
@article{a2708f9fa2764d4686797ada671154f6,
title = "Incidence and complications of accidental cannulation of retroperitoneal veins during venography for inferior vena cava filter placement",
abstract = "Background: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the incidence and complications of accidental cannulation of retroperitoneal veins during venography for inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement. Methods: In total, 641 patients who underwent IVC filter placement were retrospectively reviewed. Incidence of accidental cannulation of retroperitoneal veins during venography (using 633 sheaths and 18 catheters, including 11 pigtail type and 7 end-hole-type catheters), along with the associated complications, were evaluated. Results: The overall frequency of accidental cannulation of retroperitoneal veins was 5.4{\%} (35 of 651) via venous approaches: 5.8{\%} (24 of 411) via a right femoral approach, 3.9{\%} (5 of 129) via a left femoral approach, and 5.4{\%} (6 of 111) via a jugular approach. The most frequent veins cannulated were the ascending lumbar veins (4.6{\%}, 25 of 540) via a femoral approach, and the median sacral vein (3.6{\%}, 4 of 111) via a jugular approach. No significant difference in the frequency of accidental cannulation was observed between venography through sheaths and catheters (5.4{\%} [n = 34] vs. 5.6{\%} [n = 1; using an end-hole-type catheter]; P = 1.000). Injuries to 5 veins (0.8{\%}), including 3 ascending lumbar veins, were observed. Inadvertent filter placement within the right ascending lumbar vein was observed in 1 patient (0.2{\%}). Conclusions: Accidental cannulation of retroperitoneal veins during venography for IVC filter placement is an infrequent occurrence, and in this patient series did not result in negative clinical outcomes. However, operators should be aware of the risk of accidental cannulation to prevent avoidable complications such as venous injury or filter misplacement.",
author = "Gunvir Gill and Satoru Morita and Takashi Kitanosono and Adam Fang and David Lee and David Waldman",
year = "2013",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1016/j.avsg.2012.10.023",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "27",
pages = "767--773",
journal = "Annals of Vascular Surgery",
issn = "0890-5096",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Incidence and complications of accidental cannulation of retroperitoneal veins during venography for inferior vena cava filter placement

AU - Gill, Gunvir

AU - Morita, Satoru

AU - Kitanosono, Takashi

AU - Fang, Adam

AU - Lee, David

AU - Waldman, David

PY - 2013/8

Y1 - 2013/8

N2 - Background: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the incidence and complications of accidental cannulation of retroperitoneal veins during venography for inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement. Methods: In total, 641 patients who underwent IVC filter placement were retrospectively reviewed. Incidence of accidental cannulation of retroperitoneal veins during venography (using 633 sheaths and 18 catheters, including 11 pigtail type and 7 end-hole-type catheters), along with the associated complications, were evaluated. Results: The overall frequency of accidental cannulation of retroperitoneal veins was 5.4% (35 of 651) via venous approaches: 5.8% (24 of 411) via a right femoral approach, 3.9% (5 of 129) via a left femoral approach, and 5.4% (6 of 111) via a jugular approach. The most frequent veins cannulated were the ascending lumbar veins (4.6%, 25 of 540) via a femoral approach, and the median sacral vein (3.6%, 4 of 111) via a jugular approach. No significant difference in the frequency of accidental cannulation was observed between venography through sheaths and catheters (5.4% [n = 34] vs. 5.6% [n = 1; using an end-hole-type catheter]; P = 1.000). Injuries to 5 veins (0.8%), including 3 ascending lumbar veins, were observed. Inadvertent filter placement within the right ascending lumbar vein was observed in 1 patient (0.2%). Conclusions: Accidental cannulation of retroperitoneal veins during venography for IVC filter placement is an infrequent occurrence, and in this patient series did not result in negative clinical outcomes. However, operators should be aware of the risk of accidental cannulation to prevent avoidable complications such as venous injury or filter misplacement.

AB - Background: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the incidence and complications of accidental cannulation of retroperitoneal veins during venography for inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement. Methods: In total, 641 patients who underwent IVC filter placement were retrospectively reviewed. Incidence of accidental cannulation of retroperitoneal veins during venography (using 633 sheaths and 18 catheters, including 11 pigtail type and 7 end-hole-type catheters), along with the associated complications, were evaluated. Results: The overall frequency of accidental cannulation of retroperitoneal veins was 5.4% (35 of 651) via venous approaches: 5.8% (24 of 411) via a right femoral approach, 3.9% (5 of 129) via a left femoral approach, and 5.4% (6 of 111) via a jugular approach. The most frequent veins cannulated were the ascending lumbar veins (4.6%, 25 of 540) via a femoral approach, and the median sacral vein (3.6%, 4 of 111) via a jugular approach. No significant difference in the frequency of accidental cannulation was observed between venography through sheaths and catheters (5.4% [n = 34] vs. 5.6% [n = 1; using an end-hole-type catheter]; P = 1.000). Injuries to 5 veins (0.8%), including 3 ascending lumbar veins, were observed. Inadvertent filter placement within the right ascending lumbar vein was observed in 1 patient (0.2%). Conclusions: Accidental cannulation of retroperitoneal veins during venography for IVC filter placement is an infrequent occurrence, and in this patient series did not result in negative clinical outcomes. However, operators should be aware of the risk of accidental cannulation to prevent avoidable complications such as venous injury or filter misplacement.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84880754938&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84880754938&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.avsg.2012.10.023

DO - 10.1016/j.avsg.2012.10.023

M3 - Article

VL - 27

SP - 767

EP - 773

JO - Annals of Vascular Surgery

JF - Annals of Vascular Surgery

SN - 0890-5096

IS - 6

ER -