The Upper-Arm Basilic-Cephalic Loop: A Valueable Alternative for Below-Knee Arterial Reconstruction.

INTRODUCTION: Despite advances of endovascular interventions, bypass surgery remains the gold standard for treatment of long and complex arterial occlusions in the lower limb. Autologous vein is regarded superior to other options. As the graft of first choice, the great saphenous vein (GSV) is often not available due to previous bypass, stripping or poor quality. Other options like arm veins (AV) are important alternatives. As forearm portions of AVs are often unusable, a graft created from the upper arm basilic and cephalic veins provides a valuable alternative. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed consecutive patients treated at an academic tertiary referral center between 01/1998 and 07/2018 using arm veins as the main peripheral bypass graft. Study endpoints were primary patency, secondary patency, limb salvage and survival. RESULTS: In the observed time period 2702 bypass procedures were performed at our institution for below-knee arterial reconstructions. Vein grafts used included the ipsilateral GSV (iGSV; n = 1937/71.7%), contralateral GSV (cGSV; 192/7.1%), small saphenous vein (SSV; 133/4.9%), prosthetic conduits (61/2.3%) and different configurations of AV (379/14%). In the majority of patients receiving AV grafts a complete continuous cephalic or basilic vein (CAV) was used (n = 292/77%). If it was not possible to use major parts of these 2 veins, either spliced arm vein grafts (SAV) (42/11%) or an upper arm basilic-cephalic loop graft (45/12%) were used. Median follow-up was 27 (interquartile range: 8-50) months. After 3 years secondary patency (CAV: 85%; SAV: 62%; loop: 66%; p = 0.125) and limb salvage rates (CAV: 79%, SAV: 68%; loop: 79%; p = 0.346) were similar between the 3 bypass options. CONCLUSION: The encouraging results of alternative AV configurations highlight their value in case the basilic or cephalic veins are not useable in continuity. Especially for infragenual redo-bypass procedures, these techniques should be considered to offer patients durable revascularization options.

Arm Vein versus Small Saphenous Vein for Lower Extremity Bypass in the Absence of Both Great Saphenous Veins.

BACKGROUND: Bypass surgery remains the gold standard for long and complex arterial occlusions in the lower limb. The vein is regarded superior to prosthetic conduits in peripheral arterial bypass surgery. However, this option is often limited because of previous bypass, stripping, or poor quality of the ipsilateral and/or contralateral great saphenous vein (GSV). Under these circumstances, the arm vein (AV) and small saphenous vein (SSV) are the only alternative autologous vein grafts. METHODS: We analyzed all consecutive patients treated at an academic tertiary referral center between January 1998 and July 2018 using either the AV or SSV as the main peripheral bypass graft. Study end points were primary patency, secondary patency, limb salvage, and survival. RESULTS: In total, 416 bypass procedures using exclusively AV (n = 327) or SSV (n = 89) were performed. There was a predominance of male gender. The majority of risk factors were evenly distributed between groups. The mean follow-up period was 2.3 years (0.9 to 13.3 years). Five-year primary and secondary patency rates were 39% (95% CI: 31-47%) and 67% (59-75%) for AV and 53% (41-66%) and 76% (67-86%) for SSV, respectively (P = 0.2 and 0.25). The five-year limb salvage and survival rates were 71% (68-81%) and 84% (77-90%) for AV and 78% (67-88%) and 90% (82-98%) for SSV, respectively (P = 0.52 and 0.11). CONCLUSIONS: Both AV and SSV are equally effective alternatives for peripheral bypass if no GSV is available. Although there was a trend toward better results with the SSV, there was no significant difference between the 2 options.

Alternative Venous Conduits for Below Knee Bypass in the Absence of Ipsilateral Great Saphenous Vein.

OBJECTIVE: Vein is regarded superior to artificial graft in peripheral arterial bypass surgery. However, this option is often limited owing to previous use or removal of the ipsilateral greater saphenous vein (iGSV). In this case, the contralateral great saphenous vein (cGSV), the small saphenous vein (SSV), or arm veins (AV) are possible alternatives. Experience with all three grafts for below knee vein bypass is reported. METHODS: Consecutive patients treated at an academic tertiary referral centre between January 1998 and July 2018 using the cGSV, SSV, or AV as the main peripheral bypass graft were analysed. Study end points were primary patency, secondary patency, limb salvage, and survival. RESULTS: Over the observed time period, 2642 bypass operations for treatment of peripheral artery disease with below knee target arteries were performed at the authors' institution: 1937 procedures using the iGSV; 644 bypass procedures using the cGSV (n = 186; 28.9%), SSV (n = 101; 15.7%), or AV (n = 357; 55.4%); and 61 procedures using a prosthetic graft. The median follow up period was 2.3 years (range 9 days-18.5 years). Thirty day mortality was 1.9% for the whole group and similar between the three groups. After five years, primary and secondary patency rates were comparable between the three groups. Secondary patency was 75% (95% confidence interval [CI] 66-83) in the cGSV and SSV groups, and 65% (95% CI 57-73) in the AV group (p = .47). Limb salvage and survival after five years were, respectively, 73% (95% CI 65-81) and 89% (95% CI 82-95) in the cGSV group, 79% (95% CI 69-89) and 87% (95% CI 79-95) in the SSV group, and 74% (95% CI 68-80) and 83% (77-89) in the AV group (p = .46). CONCLUSION: All three types of alternative autologous vein graft are equal regarding outcome parameters. Vascular surgeons should consider all autologous options if their preferred choice is not available.

Small Saphenous Vein and Arm Vein as Bypass Grafts for Upper Extremity Ischemia.

BACKGROUND: Bypass in the upper extremity is a rare procedure mainly performed for chronic ischemia, trauma, or hemodialysis access complications. Feasibility and success of use of the arm vein and small saphenous vein (SSV) for autologous vein bypass have been reported in peripheral artery bypass procedures. There are very few reports on the use of alternative veins in upper extremity bypass. We report our experience with arm vein and SSV as a graft source in upper extremity arterial disease. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of a consecutively collected case series in an academic tertiary referral center from January 2010 to February 2018. Study end points were primary patency, secondary patency, limb salvage, and survival. RESULTS: In total, 47 patients were treated with upper extremity bypass either using the SSV (n = 17) or arm veins (n = 30). Indications were either acute (n = 12) or chronic ischemia (n = 35) caused by acute (n = 8) and chronic (n = 9) trauma, sequela of iatrogenic interventions (n = 4), peripheral artery disease (n = 14), thrombangiitis obliterans (n = 3), and dialysis-access-related complications (n = 9). An arm vein was used in 30 and the SSV in 17 patients. Primary patency after 12 months was 87% with the SSV and 75% with an arm vein (P = 0.8) and 63% and 75% after 36 months (P = 0.9). Secondary patency were 100% with an arm vein and 100% with the SSV after 36 months (P = 0.4). One patient had to undergo major amputation and 2 minor amputations. CONCLUSIONS: Arm vein revascularization using the primarily arm vein or SSV as a bypass conduit can be performed with reasonable mortality and morbidity rates and provide good results comparable with the greater saphenous vein.