2017 - CIRTA

This page contains exclusive content for the member of the following sections: TTS, ITA. Log in to view.

Best Abstract Session

15.6 - Role of Magnetic Resonance Venography (MRV) for the Assessment of Central Venous Access in Pediatric Intestinal Failure

Presenter: Jennifer, Garcia, Miami, United States
Authors: Jennifer Garcia, Jessica Hochberg, Akin Tekin, Nishida Seigo, Gennaro Selvaggi, Michael Nares, Rodrigo Vianna, Thiago Beduschi

Role of Magnetic Resonance Venography (MRV) for the Assessment of Central Venous Access in Pediatric Intestinal Failure

Jennifer Garcia1, Jessica Hochberg1, Akin Tekin1, Nishida Seigo1, Gennaro Selvaggi1, Michael Nares1, Rodrigo Vianna1, Thiago Beduschi1.

1Miami Transplant Institute, University of Miami/Jackson Memorial Hospital, Miami, FL, United States

Introduction:  Parenteral Nutrition (PN) is a lifesaving treatment for patients with Intestinal Failure. PN is usually administered through a central venous catheter placed in one of 6 main veins:  the right/ left internal jugular, right/left subclavian and right/left femoral. The high blood flow in these vessels allows proper mixture of macronutrients to prevent complications of high osmolar solution. Current Medicaid guidelines recognize loss of 2 access sites as an indication for intestinal transplant.

Methods:  We describe a cohort of pediatric Intestinal Failure (IF) patients evaluated at our center who underwent upper and lower extremity Venous Doppler Ultrasound and MRV of the Neck/Chest/Abdomen and Pelvis to assess Central Venous Line Associated Thrombosis.

Result: From January 2013 to December 2016 we evaluated 51 children with intestinal failure. Of these, 41 patients had concomitant studies, dopplers and MRV, to evaluate presence of thrombosis.  The age at evaluation ranged from 6 months to 19 years. 26 patients were male. ~60% (26 of 41) of the patients had Short Bowel Syndrome leading to IF. Other etiologies for IF included Dysmotility Syndromes (n=10), Microvillus Inclusion Disease (n=2), Thrombosis (n=1) and graft failure (n=2).
Venous Doppler Ultrasound identified thrombosis in 14 patients (~34%) ranging from 1-3 sites. MRV identified thrombosis in 28 patients (~68%) ranging from 1-6 sites involved. There were 14 patients (~34%) where no thrombosis was found by means of Venous Doppler but thrombosis was documented by means of MRV.  Three patients were urgently listed for transplant with appeal due to significant loss of access identified on MRV not identified on Venous Doppler.  Two patients were denied for transplant given insufficient access available identified on MRV; Venous Doppler Ultrasound on these patients did not recognize severity of thrombosis.  There were no adverse effects of sedation administered during imaging modalities. 

Discussion: Over the last decade, new surgical modalities and lipid sparing therapies have advanced the field of IF allowing patients to remain transplant-free for a longer period of time.  However, controversy remains in prevention and treatment of Central Line Associated bacterial and fungal infections leading to early removal of central lines with the potential for thrombosis formation thereafter.  Given venous accessibility is imperative to long term PN administration, screening modalities to identify thrombosis should be instituted as part of every Intestine Rehabilitation Program.  Early recognition of thrombosis is important as loss of significant access may preclude candidacy for transplantation. Our data suggest that MRV should be considered the gold standard modality as compared to Venous Doppler Ultrasound despite presumed risk associated with sedation.

Important Disclaimer

By viewing the material on this site you understand and accept that:

  1. The opinions and statements expressed on this site reflect the views of the author or authors and do not necessarily reflect those of The Transplantation Society and/or its Sections.
  2. The hosting of material on The Transplantation Society site does not signify endorsement of this material by The Transplantation Society and/or its Sections.
  3. The material is solely for educational purposes for qualified health care professionals.
  4. The Transplantation Society and/or its Sections are not liable for any decision made or action taken based on the information contained in the material on this site.
  5. The information cannot be used as a substitute for professional care.
  6. The information does not represent a standard of care.
  7. No physician-patient relationship is being established.



Staff Directory


The Transplantation Society
International Headquarters
740 Notre-Dame Ouest
Suite 1245
Montréal, QC, H3C 3X6