A comparison of endovascular assisted and conventional in situ bypass grafts

Abstract

Thirty-three in situ saphenous vein bypass grafts were performed using a conventional open technique (CI) while 31 in situ bypass grafts were performed using endovascular occlusion of side branches (EAI). Bypass grafts were performed from the femoral to the popliteal (n=37) or a trifurcation (n=27) artery for claudication (n=7), rest pain (n=14), or tissue loss (n=43). Wound complications developed in 11 Cl and four EAl limbs. Postoperative hospitalization in CI and EAI patients was, respectively, 8.4±2.0 days and 4±1.6 days. Missed arteriovenous fistulas were noted in one CI and 17 EAI limbs postoperatively. At follow-up four (12%) CI and six (19%) EAI grafts were occluded or had undergone revision surgery. Based on life-table analysis CI and EAI cumulative patency rates at 18 months were 79% and 83%, respectively. Although this new technique (EAI bypass grafting) did not reduce operative time, it did decrease the length of surgical incisions and the duration of postoperative hospitalization (p < 0.001, Student'st test).Wound complications occurred less frequently in EAI limbs but the incidence of missed arteriovenous fistulas was significantly higher. These data suggest that EAI and CI patency is comparable. Ultimately long-term patency will be the crucial test for determining the utility of this new technique.