Percutaneous in situ coronary venous arterialization (PICVA) mitigated angina in no-option patients but was complicated by a low procedural completion rate and a high incidence of MACE.
Does percutaneous in situ coronary venous arterialization (PICVA) improve angina in no-option patients?
Catheter-based coronary bypass (PICVA) shows promise for angina relief in no-option patients but requires significant device modification due to low completion rates and high MACE.
Catheter-based coronary bypass has evolved since its origin in 1995. We present a status update of one version of catheter-based bypass, percutaneous in situ coronary venous arterialization (PICVA), its successes and failures, and the many questions and challenges that remain. Initial clinical experience with PICVA demonstrated promising mitigation of angina in no-option patients, but was complicated by a relatively low procedural completion rate and a high incidence of MACE. A great deal was learned in these initial cases. The system of devices is currently undergoing significant modification, and further clinical study is underway.
Oesterle et al. (Mon,) conducted a review in Angina in no-option patients. Percutaneous in situ coronary venous arterialization (PICVA) was evaluated. Percutaneous in situ coronary venous arterialization (PICVA) mitigated angina in no-option patients but was complicated by a low procedural completion rate and a high incidence of MACE.