Chang Catherine K, Scali Salvatore T, Feezor Robert J, Beck Adam W, Waterman Alyson L, Huber Thomas S, Berceli Scott A
Division of Vascular Surgery and Endovascular Therapy, University of Florida, Gainesville, Fla.
Division of Vascular Surgery and Endovascular Therapy, University of Florida, Gainesville, Fla.
J Vasc Surg. 2014 Dec;60(6):1554-64. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2014.06.009. Epub 2014 Jul 16.
Despite poor long-term patency, acceptable limb salvage has been reported with cryopreserved saphenous vein bypass (CVB) for various indications. However, utility of CVB in patients with critical limb ischemia (CLI) remains undefined. The purpose of this analysis was to determine the role of CVB in CLI patients and to identify predictors of successful outcomes.
A retrospective review of all lower extremity bypass (LEB) procedures at a single institution was completed, and CVB in CLI patients were further analyzed. The primary end point was amputation-free survival. Secondary end points included primary patency and limb salvage. Life tables were used to estimate occurrence of end points. Cox regression analysis was used to determine predictors of limb salvage.
From 2000 to 2012, 1059 patients underwent LEB for various indications, of whom 81 received CVB for either ischemic rest pain or tissue loss. Mean age (± standard deviation) was 66 ± 10 years (male, 51%; diabetes, 51%; hemodialysis dependence, 12%), and 73% (n = 59) had history of failed ipsilateral LEB or endovascular intervention. None had sufficient autogenous conduit for even composite vein bypass. Infrainguinal CVB (infrapopliteal target, 96%; n = 78) was completed for multiple indications including Rutherford class 4 (42%; n = 34), class 5 (40%; n = 32), and class 6 (18%; n = 15). Eleven (14%) had CLI and concomitant graft infection (n = 8) or acute on chronic ischemia (n = 3). Intraoperative adjuncts (eg, profundaplasty, suprainguinal stent or bypass) were completed in 49% (n = 40) of cases. Complications occurred in 36% (n = 29), with 30-day mortality of 4% (n = 3). Median follow-up for CLI patients was 11.8 (interquartile range, 0.4-28.4) months with corresponding 1- and 3-year actuarial estimated survival (± standard error mean) of 84% ± 4% and 62% ± 6%. Primary patency of CVB for CLI was 27% ± 6% and 17% ± 6% at 1 and 3 years, respectively. Amputation-free survival was 43% ± 6% and 23% ± 6% at 1 and 3 years, respectively, and significantly higher for rest pain (59% ± 9%, 36% ± 10%) compared with tissue loss (31% ± 7%, 14% ± 7%; log-rank, P = .04). Freedom from major amputation after CVB for CLI was 57% ± 6% and 43% ± 7% at 1 and 3 years. Multivariable predictors of limb salvage for the CVB CLI cohort included postoperative warfarin (hazard ratio [HR], 0.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.2-0.8), dyslipidemia (HR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2-0.9), and rest pain (HR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2-0.9). Predictors of major amputation included graft infection (HR, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.1-9.0).
In CLI patients with no autologous conduit and prior failed infrainguinal bypass, CVB outcomes are disappointing. CVB performs best in patients with rest pain, particularly those who can be anticoagulated with warfarin. However, it may be an acceptable option in patients with minor tissue loss or concurrent graft infection, but consideration should be weighed against the known natural history of nonrevascularized CLI and nonbiologic conduit alternatives, given potential cost implications.
尽管长期通畅率较低,但已有报道称,用于各种适应证的冷冻保存大隐静脉旁路移植术(CVB)可实现可接受的肢体挽救率。然而,CVB在严重肢体缺血(CLI)患者中的效用仍不明确。本分析的目的是确定CVB在CLI患者中的作用,并识别成功结局的预测因素。
对单一机构的所有下肢旁路移植术(LEB)进行回顾性分析,并对CLI患者的CVB进行进一步分析。主要终点是无截肢生存期。次要终点包括初始通畅率和肢体挽救率。使用生命表来估计终点事件的发生率。采用Cox回归分析来确定肢体挽救的预测因素。
2000年至2012年,1059例患者因各种适应证接受了LEB,其中81例因缺血性静息痛或组织缺损接受了CVB。平均年龄(±标准差)为66±10岁(男性占51%;糖尿病患者占51%;依赖血液透析者占12%),73%(n = 59)有同侧LEB或血管内介入治疗失败史。甚至没有足够的自体血管用于复合静脉旁路移植。因多种适应证完成了腹股沟下CVB(腘动脉以下靶点,96%;n = 78),包括卢瑟福分级4级(42%;n = 34)、5级(40%;n = 32)和6级(18%;n = 15)。11例(14%)患有CLI并伴有移植物感染(n = 8)或慢性缺血急性发作(n = 3)。49%(n = 40)的病例术中采用了辅助手段(如股深动脉成形术、腹股沟上支架或旁路移植)。36%(n = 29)发生了并发症,30天死亡率为4%(n = 3)。CLI患者的中位随访时间为11.8(四分位间距,0.4 - 28.4)个月,相应的1年和3年精算估计生存率(±标准误均值)分别为84%±4%和62%±6%。CLI患者CVB的1年和3年初始通畅率分别为27%±6%和仃%±6%。1年和3年的无截肢生存期分别为43%±6%和23%±6%,静息痛患者的无截肢生存期(59%±9%,36%±10%)显著高于组织缺损患者(31%±7%,14%±7%;对数秩检验,P = 0.04)。CLI患者CVB后免于大截肢率在1年和3年分别为57%±6%和43%±7%。CVB CLI队列中肢体挽救的多变量预测因素包括术后使用华法林(风险比[HR],0.4;95%置信区间[CI],0.2 - 0.8)、血脂异常(HR,0.4;95% CI,0.2 - 0.9)和静息痛(HR,0.4;95% CI,0.2 - 0.9)。大截肢的预测因素包括移植物感染(HR,3.1;95% CI,1.1 - 9.0)。
在没有自体血管且既往腹股沟下旁路移植失败的CLI患者中,CVB的结局令人失望。CVB在静息痛患者中效果最佳,尤其是那些可以使用华法林抗凝的患者。然而,对于组织缺损较小或并发移植物感染的患者,它可能是一个可接受的选择,但考虑到潜在的成本影响,应权衡已知的非血运重建CLI的自然病程和非生物血管替代方案。