Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2025 Feb;81(2):408-416.e2.
doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2024.09.016. Epub 2024 Sep 23.

Prosthetic conduits have worse outcomes compared with great saphenous vein conduits in femoropopliteal and infrapopliteal bypass in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Prosthetic conduits have worse outcomes compared with great saphenous vein conduits in femoropopliteal and infrapopliteal bypass in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia

Alik Farber et al. J Vasc Surg. 2025 Feb.

Abstract

Objective: Single segment great saphenous vein (SSGSV) traditionally has been considered the gold standard conduit for infrainguinal bypass. There are data supporting similar outcomes with prosthetic femoral-popliteal bypass. Moreover, some investigators have advocated for prosthetic conduit for femoral tibial bypass when GSV is inadequate or unavailable. We sought to evaluate long-term outcomes of infrainguinal bypass based on conduit type for treating chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI).

Methods: Data from the Best Endovascular vs Best Surgical Therapy of Patients with CLTI multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled trial, comparing infrainguinal bypass with endovascular therapy in patients with CLTI, were evaluated. In this as-treated analysis, we compared outcomes of infrainguinal bypass using prosthetic, alternative autogenous vein (AAV), and cryopreserved vein (Cryo) with SSGSV bypass. Kaplan-Meier and multivariable analyses were performed to examine the associations of conduit type with major adverse limb events (MALE), reinterventions, above-ankle amputations, and all-cause death rates.

Results: In total, 784 bypasses were analyzed (120 prosthetic, 33 AAV, 21 Cryo, AND 610 SSGSV). For prosthetic and SSGSV, the distribution was 357 femoropopliteal (93 prosthetic and 264 GSV) and 373 infrapopliteal (27 prosthetic and 346 GSV). The mean age for the overall cohort was 67.1 years; 27.4% were female, 29.9% were non-White, and 11.5% were of Hispanic ethnicity. Patients undergoing prosthetic bypass were older (69.2 years vs 66.7 years); more likely to have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (22.5% vs 14.0%), prior coronary artery bypass grafting (88.9% vs 66.5%), and prior stroke (23.3% vs 14%); but less often were of Hispanic ethnicity (5.8% vs 12.6%) and had diabetes (59.2% vs 71.3%) (P < .05 for all). For femoropopliteal bypass, use of prosthetic conduit was associated with increased major reinterventions at 3 years overall (19.0% vs 11.5%; P = .06) and on risk-adjusted analysis (hazard ratio [HR], 2.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-4.2; P = .028). No significant differences in MALE or death, above-ankle amputation, or death were observed. Outcomes were similar for bypasses to above-knee popliteal targets and below-knee popliteal targets. For infrapopliteal bypass, the use of a prosthetic conduit was associated with increased major reintervention (25.3% vs 10.3%; P = .005), death (68.6% vs 34.8%; P < .001), and MALE or death (90.0% vs 48.1%; P < .001) at 3 years. After risk adjustment, infrapopliteal bypass with prosthetic conduit was associated with higher major reintervention (HR, 4.14; 95% CI, 1.36-12.6; P = .012), above-ankle amputation (HR, 4.64; 95% CI, 1.59-13.5; P = .005), death (HR, 2.96; 95% CI, 1.4-6.2; P = .004), and MALE or death (HR, 3.59; 95% CI, 1.64-7.86; P = .001) compared with bypass with SSGSV. Overall, AAV had similar outcomes at 3 years as SSGSV; however, Cryo had significantly higher above-ankle amputation (50.0% vs 12.8%) (HR, 4.2; 95% CI, 1.68-10.5; P = .002), major reintervention (41.9% vs 10.7%) (HR, 3.12; 95% CI, 1.18-8.22; P = .02), and MALE/death (88.8% vs 37.8%) (HR, 2.96; 95% CI, 1.43-6.14; P = .004).

Conclusions: The use of a prosthetic conduit in infrainguinal bypass is associated with inferior outcomes compared with bypass using SSGSV, particularly for bypass to infrapopliteal targets. Cryo grafts were infrequent and also demonstrated inferior outcomes. SSGSV remains the preferred conduit of choice for infrainguinal bypass.

Keywords: Bypass; Conduit; Ischemia; Prosthetic; Vein.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Disclosures J.S. reports educational grants from W. L. Gore & Associates and BD. M.M. is a member of the scientific advisory board for Janssen. M.C. is on the Abbott Vascular DSMB. K.R. is a member of the Scientific Advisory Board or Consultant for Abbott Vascular, Access Vascular, Boston Scientific-BTG, Volcano-Philips, Surmodics, Cruzar Systems, Magneto, Summa Therapeutics, and University of Maryland; an unpaid member of the Scientific Advisory Board of Thrombolex, Inc; received grants from NIH and Boston Scientific; has equity from Access Vascular, Accolade, Contego, Endospan, Embolitech, Eximo, JanaCare, PQ Bypass, Primacea, MD Insider, Shockwave, Silk Road, Summa Therapeutics, Cruzar Systems, Capture, Vascular, Magneto, Micell, and Valcare; and is a board member of VIVA Physicians, a not-for-profit 501c3, and National PERT ConsortiumTM, a not for profit 501c3. A.F. is a grant recipient of the Novo Nordisk Foundation; a consultant for Sanifit, LeMaitre, and BioGenCell; and on the advisory board for Dialysis-X and iThera Medical.

Figures

Fig 1.
Fig 1.
Kaplan-Meier analysis of major adverse limb events (MALEs) or death for femoropopliteal bypass comparing prosthetic graft with single segment great saphenous vein (SSGSV) for conduit.
Fig 2.
Fig 2.
Kaplan-Meier analysis of major adverse limb events (MALEs) or death for infrapopliteal (Infra Pop) bypass comparing prosthetic graft to single segment great saphenous vein (SSGSV) for conduit.

References

    1. Siracuse JJ, Menard MT, Eslami MH, et al. Comparison of open and endovascular treatment of patients with critical limb ischemia in the Vascular Quality Initiative. J Vasc Surg. 2016;63:958–965.e1. - PubMed
    1. Gallagher KA, Meltzer AJ, Ravin RA, et al. Endovascular management as first therapy for chronic total occlusion of the lower extremity arteries: comparison of balloon angioplasty, stenting, and directional atherectomy. J Endovasc Ther. 2011;18:624–637. - PubMed
    1. Powell R, Menard M, Farber A, et al. Comparison of specialties participating in the BEST-CLI trial to specialists treating peripheral arterial disease nationally. J Vasc Surg. 2019;69:1505–1509. - PubMed
    1. Pomposelli FB Jr, Jepsen SJ, Gibbons GW, et al. A flexible approach to infrapopliteal vein grafts in patients with diabetes mellitus. Arch Surg. 1991;126:724–727. discussion: 727–9. - PubMed
    1. Shah DM, Darling RC 3rd, Chang BB, Fitzgerald KM, Paty PS, Leather RP. Long-term results of in situ saphenous vein bypass. Analysis of 2058 cases. Ann Surg. 1995;222:438–446. discussion: 446–8. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms