Autologous alternative veins may not provide better outcomes than prosthetic conduits for below-knee bypass when great saphenous vein is unavailable

Abstract

Background: There is a need to better define the role of alternative autologous vein (AAV) segments over contemporary prosthetic conduits in patients with critical limb ischemia when great saphenous vein (GSV) is not available for use as the bypass conduit.

Methods: Consecutive patients who underwent bypass to infrageniculate targets between 2007 and 2011 were categorized in three groups: GSV, AAV, and prosthetic. The primary outcome was graft patency. The secondary outcome was limb salvage. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to adjust for baseline confounding variables.

Results: A total of 407 infrainguinal bypasses to below-knee targets were analyzed; 255 patients (63%) received a single-segment GSV, 106 patients (26%) received an AAV, and 46 patients (11%) received a prosthetic conduit. Baseline characteristics were similar among groups, with the exception of popliteal targets and anticoagulation use being more frequent in the prosthetic group. Primary patency at 2 and 5 years was estimated at 47% and 32%, respectively, for the GSV group; 24% and 23% for the AAV group; and 43% and 38% for the prosthetic group. Primary assisted patency at 2 and 5 years was estimated at 71% and 55%, respectively, for the GSV group; 53% and 51% for the AAV group; and 45% and 40% for the prosthetic group. Secondary patency at 2 and 5 years was estimated at 75% and 60%, respectively, for the GSV group; 57% and 55% for the AAV group; and 46% and 41% for the prosthetic group. In Cox analysis, primary patency (hazard ratio [HR], 0.55; P < .001; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.404-0.758), primary assisted patency (HR, 0.57; P = .004; 95% CI, 0.388-0.831), and secondary patency (HR, 0.56; P = .005; 95% CI, 0.372-0.840) were predicted by GSV compared with AAV, but there was no difference between AAV and prosthetic grafts except for the primary patency, for which prosthetic was protective (HR, 0.38; P < .001; 95% CI, 0.224-0.629). Limb salvage was similar among groups.

Conclusions: AAV conduits may not offer a significant patency advantage in midterm follow-up over prosthetic bypasses.