BACKGROUND: Controversy still remains regarding the long-term results and indications for axillofemoral bypass (AxFB). A comparison of axillobifemoral bypass (AxBFB) and aortobifemoral bypass (ABFB) was thus conducted to determine whether AxFB is an acceptable alternative vascular procedure to anatomic bypass for high-risk patients. METHODS: Sixty-three patients who underwent a total of 25 AxBFBs and 38 ABFBs for aortoiliac occlusive disease were reviewed retrospectively, and both univariate and multivarate analyses were perfomed. RESULTS: The overall survival was 82.8% at five years. A univariate analysis revealed significantly lower survival rates for patients with limb-threatening ischemia, coronary disease, and cerebrovascular disease. A multivariate analysis disclosed no significant factors influencing survival rates. The overall primary patency was 79.8% at five years. The primary patency rates for AxBFB (67.7% at five years) were significantly lower than for ABFB (88.5% at five years) based on a univariate analysis (p=0.0045). In addition, the secondary patency rates for AxBFB (80.3% at five years) were significantly lower than for ABFB (96.5% at five years, p=0.0025). A multivariate analysis disclosed significantly lower primary patency rates for grafts with a higher angiographic outflow score and simultaneous infrainguinal reconstructive procedures, but the differences between AxBFB and ABFB were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: The survival and primary patency for the AxBFB group were both inferior to the ABFB group, however a multivarate analysis disclosed no significant differences between the two groups. Poor femoral run-off and the presence of synchronous infrainguinal reconstructive procedures significantly affected graft patency, and these factors modulated the patency of AxBFB. AxFB for aortoiliac occlusive disease is therefore considered to be an acceptable procedure in appropriately selected patients.
BACKGROUND: Controversy still remains regarding the long-term results and indications for axillofemoral bypass (AxFB). A comparison of axillobifemoral bypass (AxBFB) and aortobifemoral bypass (ABFB) was thus conducted to determine whether AxFB is an acceptable alternative vascular procedure to anatomic bypass for high-risk patients. METHODS: Sixty-three patients who underwent a total of 25 AxBFBs and 38 ABFBs for aortoiliac occlusive disease were reviewed retrospectively, and both univariate and multivarate analyses were perfomed. RESULTS: The overall survival was 82.8% at five years. A univariate analysis revealed significantly lower survival rates for patients with limb-threatening ischemia, coronary disease, and cerebrovascular disease. A multivariate analysis disclosed no significant factors influencing survival rates. The overall primary patency was 79.8% at five years. The primary patency rates for AxBFB (67.7% at five years) were significantly lower than for ABFB (88.5% at five years) based on a univariate analysis (p=0.0045). In addition, the secondary patency rates for AxBFB (80.3% at five years) were significantly lower than for ABFB (96.5% at five years, p=0.0025). A multivariate analysis disclosed significantly lower primary patency rates for grafts with a higher angiographic outflow score and simultaneous infrainguinal reconstructive procedures, but the differences between AxBFB and ABFB were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: The survival and primary patency for the AxBFB group were both inferior to the ABFB group, however a multivarate analysis disclosed no significant differences between the two groups. Poor femoral run-off and the presence of synchronous infrainguinal reconstructive procedures significantly affected graft patency, and these factors modulated the patency of AxBFB. AxFB for aortoiliac occlusive disease is therefore considered to be an acceptable procedure in appropriately selected patients.
Authors: Kimberly C Zamor; Andrew W Hoel; Irene B Helenowski; Adam W Beck; Joseph R Schneider; Karen J Ho Journal: Ann Vasc Surg Date: 2017-07-21 Impact factor: 1.466
Authors: Marjolein H Liedenbaum; Froukje J Verdam; David Spelt; Hans G W de Groot; Jan van der Waal; Lijckle van der Laan Journal: World J Surg Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 3.352