Massimiliano Gessaroli1, Salvatore Tarantini2, Michele Leone2, Elisabetta Fabbri3, Ilaria Panzini3. 1. Cardiovascular Diseases Department, Vascular and Endovascular Surgery Unit, Infermi Hospital, Rimini, Italy. Electronic address: maxgessaroli53@libero.it. 2. Cardiovascular Diseases Department, Vascular and Endovascular Surgery Unit, Infermi Hospital, Rimini, Italy. 3. Cardiovascular Diseases Department, Quality and Research Assessment Unit, Infermi Hospital, Rimini, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate our results involving femorocrural bypasses by comparing heparin-bonded expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (HePTFE) graft (Propaten) modified with handmade distal compliant HePTFE cuffs (mHePTFE graft) to great saphenous vein (GSV) graft. METHODS: A retrospective study involving 74 femorocrural bypasses performed from January 2010 to May 2013 at a single institution was carried out. The indication for revascularization was critical limb ischemia (Rutherford stages 4-6. Forty-one femorocrural bypasses were created in 37 patients with unavailable GSVs using modified ringed HePTFE grafts with a handmade distal radial stretch HePTFE cuff to reduce the mismatch compliance between the graft and the artery wall. Thirty-three femorocrural bypasses were created using a reversed GSV graft. The results were analyzed in terms of primary graft patency, limb salvage, and patient survival using univariate (Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank test) and multivariate (Cox regression) analyses. RESULTS: The 2 groups were statistically comparable for main risk factors, Rutherford stage, and target artery for distal anastomoses. The run-off anatomy did not significantly differ between the prosthetic and the vein bypass group. The cumulative 30-day operative mortality rate was 2.9%. At 1, 2, and 3 years, the 2 groups were equivalent in primary graft patency (the mHePTFE group: 84%, 80%, and 70%, respectively; the GSV group: 84%,71%, and 71%, respectively; P = 0.93) and were also equivalent in terms of limb salvage (the mHePTFE group: 87%, 87%, and 76%, respectively; the GSV group: 84%, 75%, and 75%, respectively; P = 0.78) and patient survival (the mHePTFE group: 87%, 75%, and 75%, respectively; the GSV group: 87%, 73%, and 65%, respectively; P = 0.86). At Cox regression analysis, only postoperative treatment with warfarin therapy compared with double antiplatelet therapy was independently associated with poorer primary patency (P = 0.003; 95% confidence interval, 1.80-18.00; hazard ratio, 5.7). CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective study regarding femorocrural bypasses, the mHePTFE grafts had 1-, 2-, and 3-year primary patency and limb salvage results which were not significantly different from those in the GSV grafts. Additional randomized data and larger studies are needed to confirm these results.
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate our results involving femorocrural bypasses by comparing heparin-bonded expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (HePTFE) graft (Propaten) modified with handmade distal compliant HePTFE cuffs (mHePTFE graft) to great saphenous vein (GSV) graft. METHODS: A retrospective study involving 74 femorocrural bypasses performed from January 2010 to May 2013 at a single institution was carried out. The indication for revascularization was critical limb ischemia (Rutherford stages 4-6. Forty-one femorocrural bypasses were created in 37 patients with unavailable GSVs using modified ringed HePTFE grafts with a handmade distal radial stretch HePTFE cuff to reduce the mismatch compliance between the graft and the artery wall. Thirty-three femorocrural bypasses were created using a reversed GSV graft. The results were analyzed in terms of primary graft patency, limb salvage, and patient survival using univariate (Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank test) and multivariate (Cox regression) analyses. RESULTS: The 2 groups were statistically comparable for main risk factors, Rutherford stage, and target artery for distal anastomoses. The run-off anatomy did not significantly differ between the prosthetic and the vein bypass group. The cumulative 30-day operative mortality rate was 2.9%. At 1, 2, and 3 years, the 2 groups were equivalent in primary graft patency (the mHePTFE group: 84%, 80%, and 70%, respectively; the GSV group: 84%,71%, and 71%, respectively; P = 0.93) and were also equivalent in terms of limb salvage (the mHePTFE group: 87%, 87%, and 76%, respectively; the GSV group: 84%, 75%, and 75%, respectively; P = 0.78) and patient survival (the mHePTFE group: 87%, 75%, and 75%, respectively; the GSV group: 87%, 73%, and 65%, respectively; P = 0.86). At Cox regression analysis, only postoperative treatment with warfarin therapy compared with double antiplatelet therapy was independently associated with poorer primary patency (P = 0.003; 95% confidence interval, 1.80-18.00; hazard ratio, 5.7). CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective study regarding femorocrural bypasses, the mHePTFE grafts had 1-, 2-, and 3-year primary patency and limb salvage results which were not significantly different from those in the GSV grafts. Additional randomized data and larger studies are needed to confirm these results.