Vy T Ho1, Rebecca Gologorsky1, Pavel Kibrik2, Venita Chandra1, Anna Prent3, Jisun Lee4, Anahita Dua5. 1. Division of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Stanford University Hospital, Palo Alto, Calif. 2. Vascular Surgery, NYU Langone-Brooklyn, Brooklyn, NY. 3. Department of Vascular Surgery, Royal Free Hospital, London, United Kingdom. 4. Podiatry Department, VA Palo Alto Heath Care System, Palo Alto, Calif. 5. Division of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Mass. Electronic address: anahitadua@gmail.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Deep venous arterialization (DVA) is a technique aimed at providing an option for chronic limb-threatening ischemia patients with no options except amputation. In patients with no outflow distal targets permitting bypass, DVA involves creating a connection between a proximal arterial inflow and a distal venous outflow in conjunction with disruption of the vein valves in the foot. This permits blood flow to reach the foot and potentially to resolve rest pain or to assist in healing of a chronic wound. We aimed to provide an up-to-date review of DVA indications; to describe the open, percutaneous, and hybrid technique; to detail outcomes of each of the available techniques; and to relay the postoperative considerations for the DVA approach. METHODS: A literature review of relevant articles containing all permutations of the terms "deep venous arterialization" and "distal venous arterialization" was undertaken with the MEDLINE, Cochrane, and PubMed databases to find cases of open, percutaneous, and hybrid DVA in the peer-reviewed literature. The free text and Medical Subject Headings search terms included were "ischemia," "lower extremity," "venous arterialization," "arteriovenous reversal," and "lower limb salvage." Studies were primarily retrospective case series but did include two studies with matched controls. Recorded primary outcomes were patency, limb salvage, wound healing, amputation, and resolution of rest pain, with secondary outcomes of complication and overall mortality. Studies were excluded if there was insufficient discussion of technical details (graft type, target vein) or lack of reported outcome measure. RESULTS: Studies that met inclusion criteria (12 open, 3 percutaneous, 2 hybrid) were identified, reviewed, and summarized to compare technique, patient selection, and outcomes between open, percutaneous, and hybrid DVA. For open procedures, 1-year primary patency ranged from 44.4% to 87.5%; secondary patency was less reported but ranged from 55.6% at 1 year to 72% at 25-month follow-up. Limb salvage rates ranged from 25% to 100%, wound healing occurred in 28.6% to 100% of cases, and rest pain resolved in 11.9% to 100% across cohorts. For the endovascular approach, primary patency ranged from 28.6% to 40% at 6-month and 10-month follow-up. Limb salvage rates ranged from 60% to 71%, with rates of major amputation ranging from 20% to 28.5%. CONCLUSIONS: This review provides an up-to-date review of DVA indications, description of various DVA techniques, patient selection associated with each approach, and outcomes for each technique.
OBJECTIVE: Deep venous arterialization (DVA) is a technique aimed at providing an option for chronic limb-threatening ischemiapatients with no options except amputation. In patients with no outflow distal targets permitting bypass, DVA involves creating a connection between a proximal arterial inflow and a distal venous outflow in conjunction with disruption of the vein valves in the foot. This permits blood flow to reach the foot and potentially to resolve rest pain or to assist in healing of a chronic wound. We aimed to provide an up-to-date review of DVA indications; to describe the open, percutaneous, and hybrid technique; to detail outcomes of each of the available techniques; and to relay the postoperative considerations for the DVA approach. METHODS: A literature review of relevant articles containing all permutations of the terms "deep venous arterialization" and "distal venous arterialization" was undertaken with the MEDLINE, Cochrane, and PubMed databases to find cases of open, percutaneous, and hybrid DVA in the peer-reviewed literature. The free text and Medical Subject Headings search terms included were "ischemia," "lower extremity," "venous arterialization," "arteriovenous reversal," and "lower limb salvage." Studies were primarily retrospective case series but did include two studies with matched controls. Recorded primary outcomes were patency, limb salvage, wound healing, amputation, and resolution of rest pain, with secondary outcomes of complication and overall mortality. Studies were excluded if there was insufficient discussion of technical details (graft type, target vein) or lack of reported outcome measure. RESULTS: Studies that met inclusion criteria (12 open, 3 percutaneous, 2 hybrid) were identified, reviewed, and summarized to compare technique, patient selection, and outcomes between open, percutaneous, and hybrid DVA. For open procedures, 1-year primary patency ranged from 44.4% to 87.5%; secondary patency was less reported but ranged from 55.6% at 1 year to 72% at 25-month follow-up. Limb salvage rates ranged from 25% to 100%, wound healing occurred in 28.6% to 100% of cases, and rest pain resolved in 11.9% to 100% across cohorts. For the endovascular approach, primary patency ranged from 28.6% to 40% at 6-month and 10-month follow-up. Limb salvage rates ranged from 60% to 71%, with rates of major amputation ranging from 20% to 28.5%. CONCLUSIONS: This review provides an up-to-date review of DVA indications, description of various DVA techniques, patient selection associated with each approach, and outcomes for each technique.