AI Article Synopsis

  • The study aimed to compare the effectiveness of non-reversed (NRGSV) and reversed great saphenous vein (RGSV) bypass techniques for patients undergoing lower limb revascularization using a comprehensive database from 2003 to 2021.
  • An analysis of 7,123 patients revealed no significant differences in primary patency (78% for both), secondary patency (90% vs. 89%), or re-intervention rates (16% for both) between the two techniques at one year post-surgery.
  • The findings suggest that both RGSV and NRGSV are equally effective, regardless of the type of outflow target or reason

Article Abstract

Objective: Data on the efficacy of non-reversed and reversed great saphenous vein bypass (NRGSV and RGSV) techniques are lacking. The aim of the study was to compare the outcomes of patients undergoing open infrainguinal revascularisation using NRGSV and RGSV from a multi-institutional database.

Methods: The Vascular Quality Initiative database was queried for patients undergoing infrainguinal bypasses using NRGSV and RGSV for symptomatic occlusive disease from January 2003 to February 2021. The primary outcome measures included primary and secondary patency at discharge and one year. Secondary outcomes were re-interventions at discharge and one year. Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate the impact of graft configuration on outcomes of interest.

Results: Of 7 123 patients, 4 662 and 2 461 patients underwent RGSV and NRGSV, respectively. At one year, the rates of primary patency (78% vs. 78%; p = .83), secondary patency (90% vs. 89%; p = .26), and re-intervention (16% vs. 16%; p = .95) were similar between the RGSV and NRGSV cohorts, respectively. Subgroup analysis based on outflow bypass target and indication for revascularisation did not show differences in primary and secondary outcomes between the two groups. Multivariable analysis confirmed that RGSV (NRGSV as the reference) configuration was not independently associated with increased risk of primary patency loss (hazard ratio [HR] 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.91 - 1.13; p = .80), secondary patency loss (HR 0.94; 95% CI 0.81 - 1.10; p = .44), and re-intervention (HR 1.03; 95% CI 0.91 - 1.16; p = .67) at follow up.

Conclusion: The study shows that RGSV and NRGSV grafting techniques have comparable peri-operative and one year primary and secondary patency and re-intervention rates. This effect persisted when stratified by outflow targets and indication for revascularisation. Therefore, optimal selection of vein grafting technique should be guided by the patient's anatomy, vein conduit availability, and surgeon's experience.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2022.04.002DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

secondary patency
16
rgsv nrgsv
16
patients undergoing
12
nrgsv rgsv
12
primary secondary
12
non-reversed reversed
8
reversed great
8
great saphenous
8
saphenous vein
8
outcomes patients
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!