Endovascular Treatment of Peripheral Arteriovenous Malformations (AVMs): Do Angiographic Outcomes Relate to the Quality of Life?
Authors: Çay Ferdi , Eldem Gonca , Sevim Gökçe Aybeniz , Özdemir Kamil Çağan , Çil Barbaros Erhan , Vargel İbrahim , Peynircioğlu Bora 
Published: April 2023

Purpose:

Patients with arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) have a lower health-related quality of life (QoL) than the general population. QoL assessment of patients with peripheral AVMs after endovascular treatment is scarce in the literature. Radiologic and clinical outcomes are not always correlated in vascular malformation treatment. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between clinical outcomes, QoL, and angiographic outcomes.

Materials and Methods:

Patients with peripheral AVM that underwent endovascular treatment between January 2009 and December 2021 in a single center were retrospectively evaluated. Patients’ characteristics (age, sex), AVM characteristics (Schobinger classification, location, angiographic architecture), previous treatment, treatment characteristics (type of endovascular approach, embolizing agent and number of sessions), percentages of angiographic response, complications, and recurrence were evaluated. The angiographic architecture was evaluated according to the Yakes classification. The questionnaire was applied for evaluation of clinical response and QoL. Patients older than 12 years and those who can be contacted were included in clinical and QoL analysis. Clinical response was defined as improvement in the patient’s most important pretreatment symptom. Treatment response was defined as clinical response plus >50% angiographic response.

Results:

Eighty-six patients (41 males [47.7%], 45 females [52.3%]) were included in angiographic analysis. The mean age was 28.44±12.99 years (range=5–61). Forty-three patients (50%) had previous treatment. The median number of sessions was 2 (range 1–15, InterQuartile Range [IOR]=2). Sixty-one patients (30 males [49.2%], 31 females [50.8%]) were included in clinical analysis. The clinical response rate was 73.8%, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.60, 0.84]. The treatment response rate was 45.9%, 95% CI [0.33, 0.59]. The complication rate was 8.2%. Before treatment, 48 patients (78.7%) reported a negative impact on their QoL. Thirty-three of 48 patients (68.8%) reported improvement on their QoL after treatment. Higher Schobinger stages were related to a negative impact on QoL before treatment (p<0.01). Yakes types were not related to QoL (p=0.065). Clinical response was related to improvement on QoL after treatment (p<0.01). Angiographic and treatment responses were not related to improved QoL after treatment (p=0.52 and p=0.055, respectively).

Conclusion:

Angiographic architecture and outcomes were not always reflected in QoL after endovascular treatment.

Clinical Impact

This study’s findings will help clinicians with what to focus on in AVM treatment and how to monitor patients with peripheral AVM after endovascular treatment. Rather than relying too much on the angiographic response, patients should be checked for symptoms and quality of life improvement. No clear data in the literature regarding the applicability of the Yakes Classification in patients with previous treatment. This study questioned the applicability of the Yakes Classification in patients with previous treatments. In this study, type 4 AVMs were more common in patients with previous treatment.