Department of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, University Hospital Salzburg, 31507Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria.
Department of Surgery, A.ö. Bezirkskrankenhaus St. Johann, Austria.
Vasc Endovascular Surg. 2021 May;55(4):348-354. doi: 10.1177/1538574420980610. Epub 2021 Jan 22.
Despite advances of endovascular interventions, bypass surgery remains the gold standard for treatment of long and complex arterial occlusions in the lower limb. Autologous vein is regarded superior to other options. As the graft of first choice, the great saphenous vein (GSV) is often not available due to previous bypass, stripping or poor quality. Other options like arm veins (AV) are important alternatives. As forearm portions of AVs are often unusable, a graft created from the upper arm basilic and cephalic veins provides a valuable alternative.
We analyzed consecutive patients treated at an academic tertiary referral center between 01/1998 and 07/2018 using arm veins as the main peripheral bypass graft. Study endpoints were primary patency, secondary patency, limb salvage and survival.
In the observed time period 2702 bypass procedures were performed at our institution for below-knee arterial reconstructions. Vein grafts used included the ipsilateral GSV (iGSV; n = 1937/71.7%), contralateral GSV (cGSV; 192/7.1%), small saphenous vein (SSV; 133/4.9%), prosthetic conduits (61/2.3%) and different configurations of AV (379/14%). In the majority of patients receiving AV grafts a complete continuous cephalic or basilic vein (CAV) was used (n = 292/77%). If it was not possible to use major parts of these 2 veins, either spliced arm vein grafts (SAV) (42/11%) or an upper arm basilic-cephalic loop graft (45/12%) were used. Median follow-up was 27 (interquartile range: 8-50) months. After 3 years secondary patency (CAV: 85%; SAV: 62%; loop: 66%; p = 0.125) and limb salvage rates (CAV: 79%, SAV: 68%; loop: 79%; p = 0.346) were similar between the 3 bypass options.
The encouraging results of alternative AV configurations highlight their value in case the basilic or cephalic veins are not useable in continuity. Especially for infragenual redo-bypass procedures, these techniques should be considered to offer patients durable revascularization options.
尽管血管内介入治疗取得了进展,但旁路手术仍然是治疗下肢长段和复杂动脉闭塞的金标准。自体静脉被认为优于其他选择。大隐静脉(GSV)作为首选移植物,由于先前的旁路、剥脱或质量不佳,通常无法使用。手臂静脉(AV)等其他选择是重要的替代方案。由于 AV 的前臂部分通常无法使用,因此从上臂贵要静脉和头静脉创建的移植物提供了一种有价值的替代方案。
我们分析了 1998 年 1 月至 2018 年 7 月在一家学术性三级转诊中心连续接受治疗的患者,这些患者使用手臂静脉作为主要外周旁路移植物。研究终点为一期通畅率、二期通畅率、肢体存活率和生存率。
在观察期间,我们医院共进行了 2702 例膝下动脉重建旁路手术。使用的静脉移植物包括同侧大隐静脉(iGSV;1937/71.7%)、对侧大隐静脉(cGSV;192/7.1%)、小隐静脉(SSV;133/4.9%)、人工合成移植物(61/2.3%)和不同配置的 AV(379/14%)。在接受 AV 移植物的大多数患者中,使用了完整的连续头静脉或贵要静脉(CAV;292/77%)。如果无法使用这两条主要静脉的大部分,则使用拼接臂静脉移植物(SAV;42/11%)或上臂贵要-头静脉环移植物(45/12%)。中位随访时间为 27 个月(四分位距:8-50)。3 年后,二期通畅率(CAV:85%;SAV:62%;环:66%;p=0.125)和肢体存活率(CAV:79%,SAV:68%;环:79%;p=0.346)在这 3 种旁路选择之间相似。
替代 AV 构型的令人鼓舞的结果强调了在贵要或头静脉不能连续使用时它们的价值。特别是对于膝下再血管化手术,应考虑这些技术为患者提供持久的血管重建选择。