Infrainguinal Bypass for Peripheral Arterial Occlusive Disease: When Arms Save Legs

Efficacy and safety of iliofemoral bypass using arm veins as an alternative conduit for chronic limb-threatening ischemia

OBJECTIVE

The use of basilic vein in iliofemoral revascularizations was previously described in the literature as an autologous option for the treatment of vascular prosthesis infection and as a primary conduit in patients at high risk of infectious surgical complications. However, the publications available include several different indications and are limited to case reports. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of the use of arm veins as a safe and effective autologous alternative for iliofemoral reconstruction in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) and at high risk of prosthesis infection.

METHODS

We performed a multicenter, retrospective cohort study with 53 consecutive iliofemoral bypasses using arm veins as an alternative conduit. The procedures were performed between November 2013 and November 2021, exclusively for patients with CLTI classified as TASC aortoiliac C or D with increased risk of postoperative surgical infection. Demographic, clinical variables, and outcomes were collected from a prospective database. Main endpoints were amputation-free survival (AFS) and major adverse cardiovascular events. Secondary endpoints included primary and secondary patencies and overall survival. Cox regression analysis was used to identify the predictors of AFS. Postoperative surgical complications and 30-day mortality were also assessed.

RESULTS

The mean age was 64.2 ± 8.4 years, with a predominance of male gender. The median follow-up period was 615 days. All patients had CLTI, with a predominance of tissue loss (n = 51; 96.2%) and a median ankle-brachial index of 0.28. The basilic vein was utilized in most procedures (69.8%). Thirty-day major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in five cases (9.4%), and the 30-day mortality rate was 3.8%. The AFS, primary patency, secondary patency, and overall survival in 720 days were 71%, 72%, 89%, and 75%, respectively. Cox regression analysis revealed no association between the variables analyzed for AFS. There was no graft late infection nor pseudoaneurysmal degeneration.

CONCLUSIONS

Iliofemoral bypass using arm veins as an autologous conduit proved to be an effective and safe procedure with low incidence of postoperative cardiovascular complications and high rates of AFS in patients with CLTI. Also, this suggests that arm veins can be an interesting and suitable autologous alternative conduit for iliofemoral reconstructions, especially in cases in which a prosthesis should be avoided or when it is not available.

[Surgical therapy of peripheral arterial occlusive disease]

The surgical treatment of peripheral arterial occlusive disease focuses not only on the direct restoration of the femoral bifurcation but also on the peripheral bypass, especially in the case of chronic amputation-threatening ischemia. Comprehensive imaging is indispensable for planning surgical therapy. The local reconstruction of the femoral bifurcation offers very good long-term results and can be easily combined with endovascular methods. The peripheral bypass is the central pillar of surgical therapy, especially in CLTI. Autologous vein should always be the first-choice material. It delivers good long-term results in every position. Prosthetic material is only used if there is no vein and should be combined with autologous veins in the crural and pedal area if possible. The technical limit for a bypass system lies in the pedal arteries and their branches. These methods can be combined with upstream and downstream endovascular interventions in the form of a hybrid intervention. Surgical and endovascular interventions are to be considered as complementary.

Case report of superficial femoral artery and popliteal artery aneurysm repair using brachial vein

BACKGROUND

Several veins have been well-recognized as acceptable conduits for infrainguinal bypass surgery when the ipsilateral greater saphenous vein is unavailable. However, there is a paucity of literature describing the brachial vein as an adequate alternative. In the absence of other viable autogenous conduits, we describe the use of a brachial vein as a successful alternative for lower extremity revascularization.

METHODS

A 70-year-old man presented with a chief complaint of right calf pain. Duplex ultrasound imaging of his right lower extremity revealed right-sided 2.5 cm acutely thrombosed superficial femoral artery and popliteal artery aneurysms. The patient underwent a suction thrombectomy with tissue plasminogen activator using the Power Pulse feature and Solent catheter from the AngioJet® (Boston-Scientific, Marlborough, MA) system. To repair the thrombosed aneurysms, an open bypass was planned. Due to lack of viable alternative traditionally used venous conduits, a bypass was created using the patient's brachial vein.

RESULTS

A bypass was created from the superficial femoral artery to the P2 segment of the popliteal artery using a non-reversed brachial vein with ligation of the side branches of the superficial femoral artery and popliteal artery aneurysm from within the sac lumen. Completion angiogram revealed runoff through the anterior tibial artery only. Follow-up imaging at three months demonstrated a patent brachial bypass.

CONCLUSION

Brachial veins can be safely used as viable venous conduits for lower extremity bypass surgery and should therefore be considered as an alternative when more commonly used veins are unsuitable or unavailable. However, more research is needed to determine the potential opportunities and challenges this alternative may present.

The role of infragenicular spliced vein bypass surgery in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia: single center long-term results

BACKGROUND

In patients requiring infrageniculate surgical revascularization a single-segment great saphenous vein (SS-GSV) is the optimal conduit. In the absence of a SS-GSV, the small saphenous vein and arm veins can also be used to obtain an all-autologous bypass. The aim of this study was to compare the long-term results of infrageniculate SS-GSV bypasses and spliced vein bypasses in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI).

METHODS

A total of 308 consecutive CLTI patients who underwent a primary infragenicular, autologous bypass between January 2000 and December 2016 were included. The definition of a spliced vein bypass was a graft consisting of at least two venous segments.

RESULTS

A SS-GSV graft was used in 235 patients, and a spliced vein graft was used in 73 patients. Significantly more infrapopliteal bypasses were performed in the spliced vein group (P=0.024), and in this group the mean operation time was almost 60 minutes longer (P<0.001). The overall morbidity rate was 44%. The overall 30-day mortality was 3.2%, and overall in-hospital mortality was 4.9%. No significant differences were observed between the groups in mortality, overall morbidity or any specific complication. Comparing the SS-GSV group with the spliced vein group, no significant differences were observed between overall survival (53.2% vs. 45.7%), primary patency (55.5% vs. 53.2%), assisted primary patency (78.5% vs. 76.5%), secondary patency (87.9% vs. 90.6%) and limb salvage (83.3% vs. 82.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of infrageniculate spliced vein bypasses for the treatment of CLTI patients results in similar results compared with infrageniculate SS-GSV bypass grafts. A strict surveillance protocol in the first 2 years and a liberal reintervention strategy may result in excellent long-term patency rates.

Ten Year Experience of Using Cryopreserved Arterial Allografts for Distal Bypass in Critical Limb Ischaemia

OBJECTIVE/BACKGROUND

In critical limb ischaemia (CLI), current guidelines recommend revascularisation whenever possible, preferentially through endovascular means. However, in the case of long occlusions or failed endovascular attempts, distal bypasses still have a place. Single segment great saphenous vein (GSV), which provides the best conduit, is often not available and currently there is no consensus about the best alternative graft.

METHODS

From January 2006 to December 2015, 42 cryopreserved arterial allografts were used for a distal bypass. Autologous GSVs or alternative autologous conduits were unavailable for all patients. The patients were observed for survival, limb salvage, and allograft patency. The results were analysed with Kaplan-Meier graphs.

RESULTS

Estimates of secondary patency at one, two and five years were 81%, 73%, and 57%, respectively. Estimates of primary patency rates at one, two and five years were 60%, 56%, and 26%, respectively. Estimates of limb salvage rates at one, two and five years were 89%, 89%, and 82%, respectively. Estimates of survival rates at one, two and five years were 92%, 76% and 34%, respectively. At 30 days, major amputations and major adverse cardiac events were one and zero, respectively. Six major amputations occurred during the long-term follow up.

CONCLUSION

Despite a low primary patency rate at two years, the secondary patency of arterial allografts is acceptable for distal bypasses. This suggests that cryopreserved arterial allografts are a suitable alternative for limb saving distal bypasses in the absence of venous conduits, improving limb salvage rates and, possibly, quality of life.

Autologous alternative veins may not provide better outcomes than prosthetic conduits for below-knee bypass when great saphenous vein is unavailable

BACKGROUND

There is a need to better define the role of alternative autologous vein (AAV) segments over contemporary prosthetic conduits in patients with critical limb ischemia when great saphenous vein (GSV) is not available for use as the bypass conduit.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent bypass to infrageniculate targets between 2007 and 2011 were categorized in three groups: GSV, AAV, and prosthetic. The primary outcome was graft patency. The secondary outcome was limb salvage. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to adjust for baseline confounding variables.

RESULTS

A total of 407 infrainguinal bypasses to below-knee targets were analyzed; 255 patients (63%) received a single-segment GSV, 106 patients (26%) received an AAV, and 46 patients (11%) received a prosthetic conduit. Baseline characteristics were similar among groups, with the exception of popliteal targets and anticoagulation use being more frequent in the prosthetic group. Primary patency at 2 and 5 years was estimated at 47% and 32%, respectively, for the GSV group; 24% and 23% for the AAV group; and 43% and 38% for the prosthetic group. Primary assisted patency at 2 and 5 years was estimated at 71% and 55%, respectively, for the GSV group; 53% and 51% for the AAV group; and 45% and 40% for the prosthetic group. Secondary patency at 2 and 5 years was estimated at 75% and 60%, respectively, for the GSV group; 57% and 55% for the AAV group; and 46% and 41% for the prosthetic group. In Cox analysis, primary patency (hazard ratio [HR], 0.55; P < .001; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.404-0.758), primary assisted patency (HR, 0.57; P = .004; 95% CI, 0.388-0.831), and secondary patency (HR, 0.56; P = .005; 95% CI, 0.372-0.840) were predicted by GSV compared with AAV, but there was no difference between AAV and prosthetic grafts except for the primary patency, for which prosthetic was protective (HR, 0.38; P < .001; 95% CI, 0.224-0.629). Limb salvage was similar among groups.

CONCLUSIONS

AAV conduits may not offer a significant patency advantage in midterm follow-up over prosthetic bypasses.

Arm veins versus contralateral greater saphenous veins for lower extremity bypass reconstruction: preliminary data of a randomized study

BACKGROUND

The aim of this randomized study was to determine whether arm vein (AV) or contralateral greater saphenous vein (CGSV) is the better alternative vein source for lower extremity bypass reconstruction.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with absent ipsilateral greater saphenous vein undergoing lower extremity revascularization were allocated to group A (AV bypass) or B (CGSV bypass).

RESULTS

From 6, 2010, to 11, 2013, 64 patients (32 each group) were randomized. In all, 29 of 93 patients had to be excluded for various reasons. Median age was 76 years vs. 71 years (P = 0.01) for group A and B patients. There were no statistically significant differences regarding gender, cardiovascular risk factors, redo bypass procedures (P = 0.77), below-knee bypass procedures (P = 0.61), median bypass length (P = 0.6), and median length of incision on ipsilateral leg to perform anastomoses (P = 0.2) between group A and B patients, respectively. Incisions for vein harvest were longer in group A (P = 0.003). Overall surgical site infections (SSIs, P = 1.0) and SSI from vein harvest (P = 1.0) were equally distributed. No patient was lost to follow-up (17 vs. 18 months, P = 0.74). There was no statistically significant difference regarding primary (P = 0.77) and secondary (P = 0.25) patency rates at 1 year (group A: 52% vs. group B: 54% and group A: 72% vs. group B: 61%) and at 2 years (52% vs. 48% and 64% vs. 61%), respectively. There were 4 vs. 6 major amputations (P = 0.23) and 5 vs. 2 deaths (P = 0.1) in groups A and B during follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Preliminary results suggest that both AV and CGSV may serve as a secondary vein bypass graft equally well.

Distal bypasses in patients with diabetes and infrapopliteal disease: technical considerations to achieve success

The combination of diabetes and peripheral arterial disease (PAD) is challenging in many ways. The characteristic and complex distal distribution of PAD often encountered in patients with diabetes means that bypass surgery in this context is technically challenging. In addition, many of these patients have a burden of serious comorbidities that must be optimized and managed concurrently. While the authors acknowledge that "achieving success" in distal bypass relies on much more than technical expertise, there are some technical aspects that should be considered when planning surgery on these patients. This article outlines some important issues in the treatment pathway of a patient with diabetes and PAD requiring distal bypass surgery--from selection and optimization of the patient (in the context of a multidisciplinary team) and preoperative workup, to the operative strategy planning, technical tips, and nonoperative adjuncts. These considerations, as well as sound knowledge of the underlying disease process, confounding medical factors and awareness of the difficulty in predicting treatment outcomes, should help maximize the chances of success.

Peripheral arterial disease and bypass surgery in the diabetic lower limb

PAD is very common in people with diabetes and is one of the strongest predictors of developing nonhealing foot ulcers and suffering amputation. There is strong evidence to show that early detection of PAD and revascularization will reduce amputations. Despite this, many patients have no vascular assessment even when they present with a foot ulcer or before amputation. Even when identified, patients are referred late, which worsens their outcome. Currently there is no evidence to support surgical revascularization over endovascular treatments, but in reality the techniques are complementary and the choice of revascularization procedure should be determined by an experienced multidisciplinary vascular team. Surgical revascularization can achieve good results but careful patient selection, operative planning, and the use of autologous vein are necessary. What is clearly apparent is that at present not enough patients are being offered revascularization to prevent amputation.