Spliced-Vein Conduit Offers Better Patency and Limb Salvage Than Prosthetic Graft for Femoral-Tibial Bypasses in Critical Limb-Threatening Ischemia.

BACKGROUND

Single-segment great saphenous vein (ssGSV) is the gold standard conduit for femoral-tibial bypasses in patients with critical limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI). In the absence of a good single-segment saphenous vein, alternative options are prosthetic grafts or spliced-vein (SpV) conduits. Although SpV conduits may provide better long-term patency/limb salvage, prosthetic grafts are more often the chosen conduit due to shorter operative and presumably better immediate postoperative outcomes; nevertheless, there are little data supporting this practice. In this study, we compared 30-day outcomes between SpV and prosthetic conduits in CLTI bypass using a national registry.

METHODS

CLTI patients who underwent lower extremity bypass using SpV or prosthetic conduits only were selected from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program targeted database. A 1:5 propensity score matching was conducted between SpV and prosthetic groups to address preoperative differences. Thirty-day outcomes, including primary patency, reintervention, major amputation, mortality, major morbidity, transfusion, and wound complications, were compared between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

There were 886 patients who underwent femoral-tibial bypass without ssGSV (104 SpV and 782 prosthetic grafts). All SpV patients were propensity score matched to 445 prosthetic patients. SpV exhibited significantly better 30-day primary patency than prosthetic (87.5% vs 74.38%, P = 0.004). SpV was associated with significantly longer operative time (346 min vs 222 min, P < 0.001) and higher transfusion (43.3% vs 27.87%, P = 0.003), but those did not translate into higher 30-day mortality or major systemic complications. There was no difference in wound complications or 30-day limb loss.

CONCLUSIONS

SpV conduit affords significantly better 30-day primary patency than prosthetic grafts without increased mortality and morbidities. Therefore, despite greater procedural complexity and longer operative time, SpV conduit should be considered when available. Future prospective studies are needed to investigate the long-term outcomes of these 2 conduits.