OBJECTIVE: Axillofemoral bypasses (AxFBs) have been used since 1962 to treat aortoiliac disease. In the past, reported patency rates (37%-76%) for these extra-anatomic grafts have been inferior to those for anatomic aortic grafting. Reported low survival rates after AxFB (40%-50%) have confirmed that these procedures have been used primarily in patients at high risk for complications from aortofemoral bypass. However, modern medical and anesthesia management, preoperative scanning, donor artery preparation, postoperative graft surveillance, and graft technology may improve outcomes after AxFB, possibly supporting expansion of its use. We therefore report our last 15-year experience with AxFB. METHODS: Ring-reinforced, 8-mm expanded polytetrafluoroethylene grafts were used in all cases. The cross-femoral limb of axillobifemoral bypass (AxBFB) grafts was preconstructed. Heparin was administered intraoperatively, with protamine reversal. Loss of primary patency was defined as graft thrombosis of part or all of the inserted graft. Five-year primary patency rates were calculated by Kaplan-Meier analysis. RESULTS: Between February 1991 and June 2016, a total of 161 grafts were inserted (85 AxBFBs and 76 axillounifemoral bypasses [AxUFBs]) in 91 male and 70 female patients (median age, 72.6 years; mean age, 73 years; range, 41-94 years). Indications for treatment were rest pain (49.6%), ischemic lesions (26%), claudication (22.3%), failed prior revascularization (9.3%), infection (3.7%), and dissecting aneurysm (1.2%). Reasons for performing AxFB rather than aortofemoral bypass were hostile aorta (44.1%), high risk (19.2%), prior failed reconstruction (12.4%), advanced age (8.7%), infection (4.3%), hostile abdomen (4.3%), aortic dissection (0.6%), and morbid obesity (0.6%). During follow up, 63 patients died, 17 within the first year; but only 3 patients died within 30 days of surgery (performed to treat an acute aortic occlusion). The 5-year survival rate was 55%. Five-year patency rates were 83.7% for all procedures, 81.8% for AxBFB, and 85.5% for AxUFB; the difference between AxBFB and AxUFB was not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Our data indicate that AxBFB and AxUFB performed with the use of modern protocols and technology may render them an acceptable valid primary intervention in patients in whom endovascular treatment has failed or is unlikely to offer long-term success. The simplicity of performing these grafts and their low mortality and morbidity lend their application to surgeons with limited open aortic experience. Because AxUFB and AxBFB have similar patency rates, AxBFB should be reserved for bilateral indications.
OBJECTIVE: Axillofemoral bypasses (AxFBs) have been used since 1962 to treat aortoiliac disease. In the past, reported patency rates (37%-76%) for these extra-anatomic grafts have been inferior to those for anatomic aortic grafting. Reported low survival rates after AxFB (40%-50%) have confirmed that these procedures have been used primarily in patients at high risk for complications from aortofemoral bypass. However, modern medical and anesthesia management, preoperative scanning, donor artery preparation, postoperative graft surveillance, and graft technology may improve outcomes after AxFB, possibly supporting expansion of its use. We therefore report our last 15-year experience with AxFB. METHODS: Ring-reinforced, 8-mm expanded polytetrafluoroethylene grafts were used in all cases. The cross-femoral limb of axillobifemoral bypass (AxBFB) grafts was preconstructed. Heparin was administered intraoperatively, with protamine reversal. Loss of primary patency was defined as graft thrombosis of part or all of the inserted graft. Five-year primary patency rates were calculated by Kaplan-Meier analysis. RESULTS: Between February 1991 and June 2016, a total of 161 grafts were inserted (85 AxBFBs and 76 axillounifemoral bypasses [AxUFBs]) in 91 male and 70 female patients (median age, 72.6 years; mean age, 73 years; range, 41-94 years). Indications for treatment were rest pain (49.6%), ischemic lesions (26%), claudication (22.3%), failed prior revascularization (9.3%), infection (3.7%), and dissecting aneurysm (1.2%). Reasons for performing AxFB rather than aortofemoral bypass were hostile aorta (44.1%), high risk (19.2%), prior failed reconstruction (12.4%), advanced age (8.7%), infection (4.3%), hostile abdomen (4.3%), aortic dissection (0.6%), and morbid obesity (0.6%). During follow up, 63 patients died, 17 within the first year; but only 3 patients died within 30 days of surgery (performed to treat an acute aortic occlusion). The 5-year survival rate was 55%. Five-year patency rates were 83.7% for all procedures, 81.8% for AxBFB, and 85.5% for AxUFB; the difference between AxBFB and AxUFB was not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Our data indicate that AxBFB and AxUFB performed with the use of modern protocols and technology may render them an acceptable valid primary intervention in patients in whom endovascular treatment has failed or is unlikely to offer long-term success. The simplicity of performing these grafts and their low mortality and morbidity lend their application to surgeons with limited open aortic experience. Because AxUFB and AxBFB have similar patency rates, AxBFB should be reserved for bilateral indications.