Comparison of Outcomes for Open Popliteal Artery Aneurysm Repair Using Vein and Prosthetic Conduits.

Background: Autologous vein is considered the preferred conduit for lower extremity bypass. There is, however, limited literature regarding conduit choice for open popliteal artery aneurysm (PAA) repair. We sought to compare outcomes of PAA repair using vein versus prosthetic conduits.

Methods: The Vascular Quality Initiative database (2003-2019) was queried for patients with PAAs undergoing elective conventional revascularization originating from the superficial femoral and popliteal arteries. Conduits were categorized as vein or prosthetic. Primary outcomes were primary graft patency, freedom from major adverse limb event (MALE) and MALE-free survival at 2-years. Kaplan-Meier method with log-rank tests was used for estimation and comparison of patency.

Results: A total of 1,146 limbs in 1,065 patients underwent elective open revascularization for PAA. Vein was used in 921 limbs (80%), and prosthetic in 225 (20%). Patients in the prosthetic cohort had a shorter procedure time, were older, and had a higher prevalence of COPD. Postoperatively, prosthetic patients were more likely to be started and maintained on anticoagulation without increased incidence of hematoma. There was no significant difference in the rate of surgical site infection (2% vs. 2%; P = 0.946). There was an increased tendency toward more symptomatic patients in the vein cohort although not statistically significant (49% vein vs. 41% prosthetic; P = 0.096). On a mean follow-up of 13 ± 5 months, the incidence of MALE and MALE-free survival were comparable between the two groups. The 2-year primary and secondary patency rates were similar, 87% and 96% in the vein, and 91% and 95% in the prosthetic groups, respectively. At multivariable analysis, outflow bypass targets to the infrapopliteal arteries (HR 2.05; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.16-3.65; P = 0.014) and symptomatic aneurysm (HR 1.81; 95% CI, 1.04-3.15; P = 0.037) were independently associated with loss of primary patency. Conduit type did not make a difference in MALE-free survival, or primary graft patency at 2-years.

Conclusion: Our study demonstrates that conventional open PAA repair with prosthetic conduit yields results comparable to those with vein conduit with regard to primary and secondary patency and MALEs at 2-years for targets to the popliteal artery. However, when the distal target was infrapopliteal, worse outcomes were observed with prosthetic conduit. Our results suggest that vein conduit should be preferentially used for infrapopliteal targets, while prosthetic conduit confers comparable outcomes in a subset of patients who do not have suitable autologous vein conduits.