Endovenous Management of Central and Upper Extremity Veins

2019 ◽  
pp. 659-680
Author(s):  
Constantino S. Peña ◽  
Ashley Nicole Adamovich
Keyword(s):  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Extremity Veins

Comparison of upper extremity versus lower extremity vein injections of bubble contrast in assessment of patent foramen ovale

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
D Mutlu ◽  
E Durmaz ◽  
M.H Karpuz ◽  
B Karadag ◽  
B Ikitimur ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Patent Foramen Ovale ◽  
Superior Vena ◽  
Vena Cava ◽  
Interatrial Septum ◽  
Contrast Study ◽  
Foramen Ovale ◽  
Eustachian Valve ◽  
Extremity Veins

Abstract Background Patent foramen ovale (PFO) is one of the causes of cardioembolism and closure of PFO is recommended by the current guidelines in patients with recurrent stroke. Transoesophageal echocardiography (TEE) using bubble-contrast study is the gold standard imaging modality for the assessment of interatrial septum. Upper-extremity veins are the most common way of injection, however, the presence of Eustachian valve and flow dynamics when bubble-contrast injection performed via upper extremity veins limits the assessment of interatrial septum in several cases. In this study, we aimed to compare the efficacy of bubble-contrast study between upper extremity injection and lower extremity injection. Material/Methods Patients with a suspicion of cardioembolism who were undergoing TEE study were included in this study. After routine assessment of cardiac structures, the bubble-contrast study was performed using agitated saline from both upper-extremity vein and lower-extremity vein with Valsalva manoeuvre. Right-to-left shunt and numbers of bubbles transmitted from the septum were recorded. Results We prospectively included 45 patients and 21 PFOs were detected. There were 9 patients with prominent Eustachian valve and in 6 patients Eustachian valve hampered the complete opacification of the right atrium. In 3 patients flow from the superior vena cava was directed towards the tricuspid valve and hampered the complete opacification. Among 21 patients with PFO, in 6 patients right-to-left shunt was not observed when agitated-saline was injected via the upper-extremity vein, however, the shunt was observed when the agitated-saline was injected via the lower-extremity vein. In 14 patients amount of bubbles passing through the interatrial septum were significantly higher when the injection was performed via the lower-extremity vein especially in patients with prominent Eustachian valve. Conclusion Our preliminary results indicated that compared to upper-extremity veins, injection via the lower-extremity veins provides better opacification of right atrial septum and assessment of interatrial septum. Therefore, injection through the lower-extremity veins would be the preferred choice particularly in patients with prominent Eustachian valve or downward directed flow from the superior vena cava. Figure 1 Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

The feasibility and safety of PICCs accessed via the superficial femoral vein in patients with superior vena cava syndrome

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 34-39 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yonghui Wan ◽  
Yuxin Chu ◽  
Yanru Qiu ◽  
Qian Chen ◽  
Wei Zhou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Superior Vena Cava Syndrome ◽  
Superior Vena ◽  
Femoral Vein ◽  
Vena Cava ◽  
Superficial Femoral Vein ◽  
Catheter Malposition ◽  
Vena Cava Syndrome ◽  
Central Catheters ◽  
Extremity Veins

Objective: To investigate the feasibility and safety of the peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) accessed via the superficial femoral vein in patients with superior vena cava syndrome (SVCS). Methods: From October 2010 to December 2014, 221 cancer patients with SVCS in our center received real-time ultrasound-guidance of the superficial femoral vein inserted central catheters (FICCs) at the mid-thigh. PICC insertion via upper extremity veins had also been investigated in 2604 cancer patients without SVCS as control. The average catheterization time, one-time puncture frequency, catheter duration and complications were compared between two groups. Results: In the FICC group, the mean catheterization time was 31.60 ± 0.15 minutes, one-time puncture frequency was 1.05 ± 0.08, and catheter duration was 168.95 ± 20.47 days. There was no significant difference compared with the upper extremity veins PICC group: 31.11 ± 3.86 minutes, 1.03 ± 0.30, and 173.58 ± 39.81 days, respectively. The major complications included skin allergy to chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) dressings, exudation, catheter-related infection, catheter occlusions, unplanned catheter withdrawal, venous thrombosis, mechanical phlebitis, and catheter malposition. It is interesting that a higher rate of catheter malposition was observed in the upper extremity veins PICC group than in the FICC group (2.15% vs. 0.00%). There were no significant differences in other complications between the two groups. Conclusions: Real-time ultrasound-guided PICCs accessed via the superficial femoral vein at the mid-thigh is a new modified technique with low complications, which can be a feasible and safe alternative venous access for patients with SVCS.

Combining Values

2002 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-4, 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher R. Brigham
Keyword(s):  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Evaluation Method ◽  
Proximal Phalanx ◽  
Common Error ◽  
The Third ◽  
Whole Person ◽  
Impairment Ratings ◽  
Upper Extremity Impairment ◽  
The Individual

Abstract To account for the effects of multiple impairments, evaluating physicians must provide a summary value that combines multiple impairments so the whole person impairment is equal to or less than the sum of all the individual impairment values. A common error is to add values that should be combined and typically results in an inflated rating. The Combined Values Chart in the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, Fifth Edition, includes instructions that guide physicians about combining impairment ratings. For example, impairment values within a region generally are combined and converted to a whole person permanent impairment before combination with the results from other regions (exceptions include certain impairments of the spine and extremities). When they combine three or more values, physicians should select and combine the two lowest values; this value is combined with the third value to yield the total value. Upper extremity impairment ratings are combined based on the principle that a second and each succeeding impairment applies not to the whole unit (eg, whole finger) but only to the part that remains (eg, proximal phalanx). Physicians who combine lower extremity impairments usually use only one evaluation method, but, if more than one method is used, the physician should use the Combined Values Chart.

Impairment Tutorial: Functionally Limiting Upper Extremity Pain: Controversies in Impairment Rating

2003 ◽  
Vol 8 (5) ◽  
pp. 4-12
Author(s):  
Lorne Direnfeld ◽  
James Talmage ◽  
Christopher Brigham
Keyword(s):  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Radicular Pain ◽  
Illness Behavior ◽  
Orthopedic Surgeon ◽  
First Case ◽  
Clinical Presentations ◽  
Whole Person ◽  
Physical Examinations ◽  
Upper Extremity Impairment ◽  
The Individual

Abstract This article was prompted by the submission of two challenging cases that exemplify the decision processes involved in using the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides). In both cases, the physical examinations were normal with no evidence of illness behavior, but, based on their histories and clinical presentations, the patients reported credible symptoms attributable to specific significant injuries. The dilemma for evaluators was whether to adhere to the AMA Guides, as written, or to attempt to rate impairment in these rare cases. In the first case, the evaluating neurologist used alternative approaches to define impairment based on the presence of thoracic outlet syndrome and upper extremity pain, as if there were a nerve injury. An orthopedic surgeon who evaluated the case did not base impairment on pain and used the upper extremity chapters in the AMA Guides. The impairment ratings determined using either the nervous system or upper extremity chapters of the AMA Guides resulted in almost the same rating (9% vs 8% upper extremity impairment), and either value converted to 5% whole person permanent impairment. In the second case, the neurologist evaluated the individual for neuropathic pain (9% WPI), and the orthopedic surgeon rated the patient as Diagnosis-related estimates Cervical Category II for nonverifiable radicular pain (5% to 8% WPI).

Spinal Impairment Evaluation: Fifth Edition Changes

2001 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-3
Author(s):  
Robert H. Haralson
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Cord ◽  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Spinal Cord Injuries ◽  
Clinical Findings ◽  
Fourth Edition ◽  
Treatment Results ◽  
Standard Terminology ◽  
Made In

Abstract The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Fifth Edition, was published in November 2000 and contains major changes from its predecessor. In the Fourth Edition, all musculoskeletal evaluation and rating was described in a single chapter. In the Fifth Edition, this information has been divided into three separate chapters: Upper Extremity (13), Lower Extremity (14), and Spine (15). This article discusses changes in the spine chapter. The Models for rating spinal impairment now are called Methods. The AMA Guides, Fifth Edition, has reverted to standard terminology for spinal regions in the Diagnosis-related estimates (DRE) Method, and both it and the Range of Motion (ROM) Method now reference cervical, thoracic, and lumbar. Also, the language requiring the use of the DRE, rather than the ROM Method has been strengthened. The biggest change in the DRE Method is that evaluation should include the treatment results. Unfortunately, the Fourth Edition's philosophy regarding when and how to rate impairment using the DRE Model led to a number of problems, including the same rating of all patients with radiculopathy despite some true differences in outcomes. The term differentiator was abandoned and replaced with clinical findings. Significant changes were made in evaluation of patients with spinal cord injuries, and evaluators should become familiar with these and other changes in the Fifth Edition.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document