Volume Flow and Peak Systolic Velocity of the Arteriovenous Circuit in Patients after Percutaneous Deep Venous Arterialization

Short-Term Outcomes and Efficacy of Percutaneous Deep Vein Arterialization for No-Option Critical Limb Ischemia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous deep vein arterialization (pDVA) is considered a treatment modality in patients with no-option critical limb ischemia. However, there is still a paucity of evidence regarding its safety and efficacy.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase and Web of Science databases as well as the CENTRAL registry up to the end of June 2023.

METHODS

This review adhered to the PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO registration no. CRD42023445171). The risk of bias was assessed using the methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS). Primary endpoints included technical success, overall survival and limb salvage during the follow-up. Amputation-free survival at 30 days, 6 months and 1 year as well as complete wound healing, major adverse limb events and reintervention were investigated as secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

Five observational studies, comprising 208 patients (142 Rutherford class 5/77 Rutherford class 6), were included. MINORS revealed a low risk of bias. The meta-analysis reached a pooled technical success rate of 96.2% (95% CI: 91.5-98.4), an overall survival of 82.8% (95% CI: 70.5-95.2) and a limb salvage rate of 77.2% (95% CI: 65.2-89.1) during the follow-up. The amputation-free survival at 30 days, 6 months and 1 year was 87.8%, 68.7% and 65.6%, respectively. Furthermore, pDVA resulted in a complete wound healing rate of 53.4% (95% CI: 30.3-76.5). The pooled reintervention rate was as high as 46.7% (37.1-56.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

PDVA seems a feasible bail-out strategy for patients with no option for routine treatment of CLTI. However, due to the small number of studies, the strength of the evidence is low.

Hybrid superficial venous arterialization and endovascular deep venous arterialization

We report on two venous arterialization (VA) techniques for treatment of CLTI in patients traditionally considered as having no treatment options for standard arterial endovascular or surgical bypass procedures. Screening and the preprocedural workup findings are outlined as deciding factors in determining a patient's fitness for the two techniques, with a focus on careful preprocedure arterial duplex ultrasound and assessment for vein suitability. Cardiac and infection screening are also factors in determining patient suitability for VA. In addition, radiographic assessment for the presence of medial artery calcification, which is used as a marker of technical difficulty and is a predictor of poor outcomes, is required. Ultimately, anatomic factors are used to determine the decision between hybrid superficial VA and or endovascular deep VA. Those with an occluded anterior tibial artery and suitable great saphenous vein are prioritized to hybrid superficial VA, and those with an occluded posterior tibial artery to endovascular deep VA. Both procedures are described in detail in this report of vascular and surgical techniques.

Early Experience with Venous Arterialization for Limb Salvage in No-Option Patients with Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia

OBJECTIVES

Chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) is associated with adverse limb outcomes and increased mortality. In a small subset of the CLTI population, there are no feasible conventional means of revascularization. In such cases, venous arterialization (VA) provides an alternative for limb salvage. The objective of this study was to review the outcomes of venous arterialization (VA) at our institution.

METHODS

This is a single institution review of 41 patients followed prospectively who underwent either superficial or deep VA. Data collected included: patient demographics, co-morbidities, VA technique (endovascular vs. hybrid) and WIfI (wound ischemia foot infection) limb staging. Data were collected at 1 month, 6 months and 1-year intervals and included the following outcomes: patency, wound healing, major adverse limb event (MALE), major amputation and death. Descriptive statistics were used for analysis.

RESULTS

The study group includes 41 patients who underwent successful open hybrid superficial or deep endovascular VA; 21 (51.2%) underwent a purely endovascular procedure and 20 (48.8%) had hybrid VA. The WIfI clinical stages were as follows: 33 (80.5%) stage 4, 6 (14.6%) stage 3, and 1 (2.4%) stage 2. Twenty-four (58.5%) patients completed follow-up at 6 months and 16 (39%) at 1 year. VA primary patency at 12 months was 28.6% (95% CI 0.15-0.43), primary assisted patency at 12 months was 44.3% (95% CI 0.27-0.60) and secondary patency at 12 months was 67% (95% CI 0.49-0.80). Complete wound healing rates were 2.7% (1) at 1 month; 62.5% (15) at 6 months; and 18.8% (3) at 1 year. Overall wound healing at 1 year was 46.3% (19). MALE rate at 1 year was 36.5% (15) comprised of 19.5% (8) re-interventions and 17% (7) major amputations. There were 0 (0%) deaths at 1 month and 4 (19%) deaths at 6 months; 2 (9.5%) deaths were attributed to COVID-19. There were no further deaths within 1 year. The limb salvage survival probability at 1 year was 81%.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that for a select subset of CLTI patients presenting with high WIfI clinical limb stage CLTI and no viable options for conventional open or endovascular arterial revascularization, superficial and deep venous arterialization are feasible options to achieve limb salvage.

Development of a Prediction Model for the Occurrence of Stenosis or Occlusion after Percutaneous Deep Venous Arterialization

Percutaneous deep venous arterialization (pDVA) is a promising treatment option in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia. Stenosis and occlusions, which are the Achilles’ heel of every revascularization procedure, can be treated when detected early. However, frequent monitoring after pDVA is required because when stenosis or occlusions develop is unknown. Therefore, patients currently need to visit the hospital every 2 weeks for surveillance, which can be burdensome. Accordingly, we aimed to develop a model that can predict future stenosis or occlusions in patients after pDVA to be able to create tailor-made follow-up protocols. The data set included 343 peak systolic velocity and 335 volume flow measurements of 23 patients. A stenosis or occlusion developed in 17 patients, and 6 patients remained lesion-free. A statistically significant increase in the risk of stenosis or occlusion was found when duplex ultrasound values decreased 20% within 1 month. The prediction model was also able to estimate a patient-specific risk of future stenosis or occlusions. This is promising for the possibility of reducing the frequency of follow-up visits for low-risk patients and increasing the frequency for high-risk patients. These observations are the starting point for individual surveillance programs in post-pDVA patients. Future studies with a larger cohort are necessary for validation of this model.