MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1016/j.jvs.2010.04.013

Медицинская библиотека · Journal of vascular surgery · 2010

Arm vein conduit vs prosthetic graft in infrainguinal revascularization for critical leg ischemia.

Arvela Eva, Söderström Maria, Albäck Anders, Aho Pekka-Sakari, Venermo Maarit, Lepäntalo Mauri

Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАПеревод в очереди

Аннотация

BACKGROUND

One-piece great saphenous vein (GSV) is the conduit of choice in infrainguinal revascularizations for critical limb ischemia (CLI). Unfortunately, adequate length of usable GSV is not always available. Despite inferior patency rates compared with GSV, prosthetic and arm vein conduits are generally considered usable. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcome of infrainguinal arm vein and prosthetic bypass.

MATERIAL AND

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 290 consecutive infrainguinal bypasses for CLI using arm vein conduit (n = 130) or prosthetic graft (n = 160) during January 2000 and December 2006 at our institution. The groups were compared for risk factors, indication for surgery, and runoff score. Survival, leg salvage, and patency rates were calculated with the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

Median surveillance time was 35 months (range 0-118 months). The age, gender, and usual risk factors were similar in arm vein and prosthetic groups, except cerebrovascular disease that was more common in the prosthetic group (P = .011). Indication for surgery was CLI. In the arm vein group, more than two-thirds (70.2%) of the procedures were for ischemic ulcer or gangrene, whereas in the prosthetic group the main indication was ischemic rest pain (51.3%). When the outcome of femoropopliteal bypasses was analyzed, the difference between groups was not statistically significant. However, in infrapopliteal revascularizations primary patency, assisted primary patency, and secondary patency rates at 3 years were significantly better in the arm vein group: 28.3% (SE +/- 6.3%) vs 9.6% (SE +/- 8.1%) (P = .031), 56.8% (SE +/- 6.6%) vs 10.4% (SE +/- 8.7%) (P = .000), and 57.4% (SE +/- 6.6) vs 11.2% (SE +/- 9.3%) (P = .000), respectively. Leg salvage and survival at 3 years were 75.0% (SE +/- 4.9%) vs 57.1% (SE +/- 8.8%) (P = .005) and 58.8% (SE +/- 5.1%) vs 39.5% (SE +/- 7.7%) (P = .007), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Arm vein conduits, even when spliced, are superior to prosthetic grafts in terms of midterm assisted primary patency, secondary patency, and leg salvage in infrapopliteal bypasses for CLI.

Для цитирования: Arvela Eva, Söderström Maria, Albäck Anders, Aho Pekka-Sakari, Venermo Maarit, Lepäntalo Mauri. Arm vein conduit vs prosthetic graft in infrainguinal revascularization for critical leg ischemia.. Journal of vascular surgery. 2010. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2010.04.013.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

История · было → стало

Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.