Samson Russell H, Showalter David P, Lepore Michael R, Nair Deepak G, Dorsay Douglas A, Morales Ricardo E
Sarasota Vascular Specialists, Affiliated with Florida State University, Sarasota, Fla.
Sarasota Vascular Specialists, Affiliated with Florida State University, Sarasota, Fla.
J Vasc Surg. 2018 Nov;68(5):1430-1437. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2018.01.061. Epub 2018 Aug 9.
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.
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.
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.
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.
自1962年以来,腋股旁路术(AxFB)一直用于治疗主髂动脉疾病。过去,这些解剖外移植物的报道通畅率(37%-76%)低于解剖性主动脉移植术。报道的AxFB术后低生存率(40%-50%)证实,这些手术主要用于腹主-股动脉旁路术并发症高风险患者。然而,现代医学和麻醉管理、术前扫描、供体动脉准备、术后移植物监测及移植物技术可能改善AxFB术后结局,这可能支持扩大其应用范围。因此,我们报告过去15年AxFB的经验。
所有病例均使用环形加强的8毫米膨体聚四氟乙烯移植物。腋双股旁路术(AxBFB)移植物的跨股肢体预先构建。术中给予肝素,并使用鱼精蛋白中和。原发性通畅丧失定义为部分或全部植入移植物的血栓形成。采用Kaplan-Meier分析计算5年原发性通畅率。
1991年2月至2016年6月,91例男性和70例女性患者(中位年龄72.6岁;平均年龄73岁;范围41-94岁)共植入161个移植物(85个AxBFB和76个腋单股旁路术[AxUFB])。治疗指征为静息痛(49.6%)、缺血性病变(26%)、间歇性跛行(22.3%)、既往血管重建失败(9.3%)、感染(3.7%)和夹层动脉瘤(1.2%)。进行AxFB而非腹主-股动脉旁路术的原因包括主动脉情况不佳(44.1%)、高风险(19.2%)、既往重建失败(12.4%)、高龄(8.7%)、感染(4.3%)、腹部情况不佳(4.3%)、主动脉夹层(0.6%)和病态肥胖(0.6%)。随访期间,63例患者死亡,17例在第1年内死亡;但仅3例患者在手术(治疗急性主动脉闭塞)后30天内死亡。5年生存率为55%。所有手术的5年通畅率为83.7%,AxBFB为81.8%,AxUFB为85.5%;AxBFB与AxUFB之间的差异不显著。
我们的数据表明,采用现代方案和技术进行的AxBFB和AxUFB可能使其成为血管内治疗失败或不太可能长期成功的患者可接受的有效主要干预措施。这些移植物操作简单,死亡率和发病率低,适用于开放主动脉经验有限的外科医生。由于AxUFB和AxBFB的通畅率相似,AxBFB应保留用于双侧指征。