Comparative outcomes between cryopreserved cadaveric saphenous vein and spliced autogenous vein for infrainguinal bypass

ObjectiveCryopreserved greater saphenous vein (CV) and spliced autogenous veins (SV) serve as alternative conduits for lower extremity revascularization when a single-segment autogenous saphenous vein is not available. This study compares the outcomes of infrainguinal bypasses using CV and two-segment SV as conduits.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective review of data on all lower extremity bypasses performed using CV or SV at our institution. Patients undergoing revascularization for atherosclerotic occlusive disease were included in the statistical analysis, while those with primary acute embolic and/or traumatic causes were excluded. Primary outcomes included limb loss. Secondary outcomes included primary, primary assisted, and secondary patency at one and 3 years.Results56 patients were included in the analysis, 25 had CV bypass and 31 had SV. The groups did not significantly differ in demographics and comorbidities except for age (mean age 68 CV vs 62 SV, <i>p</i> = .03), and prior coronary artery bypass graft (32% CV vs 6.5% SV, <i>p</i> = .01). There was no statistically significant difference between CV and SV at one- and three-years in limb salvage (54.4% CV vs 61.7% SV, <i>p</i> = .96 and 48.3% CV vs 50.2% SV, <i>p</i> = .94), and bypass abandonment (44.2% CV vs 61.7% SV, <i>p</i> = .83 and 44.2% CV vs 44% SV, <i>p</i> = .85). Despite lower one and 3-year primary patency for CV compared to SV (33.3% CV vs 54.9% SV, <i>p</i> = .29, and 27.7% CV vs 48% SV, <i>p</i> = .27), the difference was statistically not significant. CV and SV had also similar one and 3-year primary assisted (41.8% CV vs 57.8% SV, <i>p</i> = .72 and 41.8% CV vs 44.9% SV, <i>p</i> = .71), and secondary patency (43.9% CV vs 61.7% SV, <i>p</i> = .8 and 43.9% CV vs 44% SV, <i>p</i> = .88), with no statistically significant difference.ConclusionIn patients for whom single-segment autologous saphenous vein bypass is not an option, CV and SV show comparable limb salvage up to 3 years. SV may be a more durable option with higher patency, this was however not statistically significant in our cohort likely due to sample size.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Vascular
Published
2024-09-09
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/17085381241283123
Primary Topic
Peripheral Artery Disease Management
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparative outcomes between cryopreserved cadaveric saphenous vein and spliced autogenous vein for infrainguinal bypass

Naixin Kang, Tony Shao, Fang Yuan, Jorge Rey et al.
Vascular
Peripheral Artery Disease Management
article

Comparative outcomes between cryopreserved cadaveric saphenous vein and spliced autogenous vein for infrainguinal bypass

Naixin Kang, Tony Shao, Fang Yuan, Jorge Rey, Stefan Kénel-Pierre, Christopher Montoya, Arash Bornak, Christopher Chow, Lea Tordjman, Akashara Challa
article en

Abstract

ObjectiveCryopreserved greater saphenous vein (CV) and spliced autogenous veins (SV) serve as alternative conduits for lower extremity revascularization when a single-segment autogenous saphenous vein is not available. This study compares the outcomes of infrainguinal bypasses using CV and two-segment SV as conduits.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective review of data on all lower extremity bypasses performed using CV or SV at our institution. Patients undergoing revascularization for atherosclerotic occlusive disease were included in the statistical analysis, while those with primary acute embolic and/or traumatic causes were excluded. Primary outcomes included limb loss. Secondary outcomes included primary, primary assisted, and secondary patency at one and 3 years.Results56 patients were included in the analysis, 25 had CV bypass and 31 had SV. The groups did not significantly differ in demographics and comorbidities except for age (mean age 68 CV vs 62 SV, <i>p</i> = .03), and prior coronary artery bypass graft (32% CV vs 6.5% SV, <i>p</i> = .01). There was no statistically significant difference between CV and SV at one- and three-years in limb salvage (54.4% CV vs 61.7% SV, <i>p</i> = .96 and 48.3% CV vs 50.2% SV, <i>p</i> = .94), and bypass abandonment (44.2% CV vs 61.7% SV, <i>p</i> = .83 and 44.2% CV vs 44% SV, <i>p</i> = .85). Despite lower one and 3-year primary patency for CV compared to SV (33.3% CV vs 54.9% SV, <i>p</i> = .29, and 27.7% CV vs 48% SV, <i>p</i> = .27), the difference was statistically not significant. CV and SV had also similar one and 3-year primary assisted (41.8% CV vs 57.8% SV, <i>p</i> = .72 and 41.8% CV vs 44.9% SV, <i>p</i> = .71), and secondary patency (43.9% CV vs 61.7% SV, <i>p</i> = .8 and 43.9% CV vs 44% SV, <i>p</i> = .88), with no statistically significant difference.ConclusionIn patients for whom single-segment autologous saphenous vein bypass is not an option, CV and SV show comparable limb salvage up to 3 years. SV may be a more durable option with higher patency, this was however not statistically significant in our cohort likely due to sample size.

VascularVol. 33(5)
University of Miami (US)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 72%
Peripheral Artery Disease Management
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.