Patency of superficial femoral vein employed as a crossover femoral artery bypass conduit

Contemporary Use of the Femoropopliteal Vein in Vascular Reconstructions

INTRODUCTION

Current practice patterns favor endovascular treatment, resulting in fewer open procedures. When needed, greater saphenous vein and/or prosthetic conduits are considered the first choice for open vascular bypass. However, there is a cohort of patients in which these conduits are either not available or not suitable to address the surgical requirements. One alternative is to use femoropopliteal vein (FPV), an often-overlooked conduit. We report on the contemporary use of FPV in a tertiary vascular institution.

METHODS

All patients who underwent FPV harvest, as defined by CPT code 35572, between 2005 and 2019 were identified. Patient demographics (sex, age, baseline laboratory values, medical co-morbidities), indication for use of FPV, complications specific to vein harvest, operative details, post-operative course, and outcomes were recorded.

RESULTS

Ninety patients had harvest of FPV for creation of 123 conduits. In this study, a conduit was defined as a segment of vein used to perfuse a distinctly separate vascular bed. We identified four cohorts in which FPV was used: aorto-iliac reconstruction in 38 patients for infected graft (19), occlusive disease (8), aortitis (5), mycotic aneurysm (5), and malignancy (1); peripheral artery revascularization in 26 patients for ilio-femoral reconstruction (15), femoropopliteal reconstruction (4), upper extremity/cerebrovascular reconstruction (6), and coronary bypass (1); mesenteric revascularization in 20 patients for acute or acute on chronic ischemia (12), chronic ischemia (7) or aneurysm (1); and dialysis access in 6 patients. There was a high incidence of pre-existing comorbid conditions in all groups, but most notably those patients who underwent aorto-iliac reconstruction. Harvest-related or conduit-related complications included compartment syndrome, graft-associated hemorrhage, surgical site infection, and lymphatic complications. Primary graft patency at 3 years was 83% ± 4% (aorto-iliac), 83% ± 6% (peripheral), 100% (mesenteric), and 23% ± 19% (dialysis access, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

While use of FPV has potential significant harvest-related, conduit-related, or systemic complications, FPV is useful for a variety of needs, almost universally available, and durable. In the current era where endovascular approach is the focus, FPV should not be forgotten as a potential conduit that can be used for a variety of vascular reconstruction indications.

Feasibility and Outcomes of Femoral Vein Harvest for Dialysis Access and Arterial Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

We describe the feasibility and long-term outcomes of using femoral vein (FV) for arteriovenous fistula (AVF) and lower extremity bypass (LEB) creation.

METHODS

All patients undergoing AVF or LEB using autogenous FV by a single surgeon (April 2006 to September 2013) were reviewed. Perioperative (30-d) complications and long-term outcomes are described.

RESULTS

Forty-four patients underwent vascular reconstruction with FV (AVF = 27 and LEB = 17). Perioperative morbidity was 43.2%, including harvest site infection and or seroma in 15.9%. No patients suffered from compartment syndrome or venous thromboembolic event. At median follow-up of 50.0 mon, overall patency was 70.4% for AVF (primary = 37.0% and secondary = 70.3%) and 76.5% for LEB (primary = 70.6% and secondary = 76.5%). Long-term lower extremity swelling occurred in 18.2% of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Perioperative morbidity following FV harvest is high, but long-term patency rates are excellent. FV harvest is feasible and should be considered as a valid conduit in patients without useable great saphenous vein or other more commonly used sources of autogenous vein.

Use of Cryopreserved Femoral Vein for In Situ Replacement of Infected Femorofemoral Prosthetic Artery Bypass

Isolated groin infection following crossover femoral bypass is not uncommon, and its management may be challenging, especially in medically high-risk patients. When an in situ replacement is appropriate, using an autologous vein (femoral or saphenous) would be the preferred method; however, this may not always be feasible. The authors used cryopreserved femoral vein grafts for in situ replacement of femorofemoral bypass grafts with excellent results in 3 high-risk patients who developed early graft infections and failed graft preservation attempts. In situ replacement of infected femorofemoral grafts using a cryopreserved femoral vein graft can be considered as a second-line intervention when an adequately sized autologous vein is unavailable or unusable or is not feasible in high-risk patients.

Femorofemoral bypass with femoral popliteal vein

BACKGROUND

The femoropopliteal vein (FPV) has been used successfully for vascular reconstructions at multiple sites. To date, there have been no studies documenting patency of the FPV graft in the femorofemoral position. Our goal was to assess long-term patency of the FPV graft used for femorofemoral bypass (FFBP).

METHODS

Patients undergoing FFBP over a 10-year period were studied. Those in whom the FPV was used as a conduit were analyzed for runoff resistance score to assess how patients with poor runoff fared. Poor runoff was defined as a runoff resistance score of > or =7 (1 = normal runoff, 10 = total occlusion of all runoff vessels).

RESULTS

Fifty-four patients underwent FPV FFBP as a sole procedure (n = 16, 30%) or as a portion of an aortofemoral reconstruction with a FFBP component (n = 38, 70%). Mean (+/- SD) follow-up was 47 +/- 33 months. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year primary patencies were 97%, 93%, and 76%. The 5-year assisted primary and secondary patency rates were 85% and 90%. Among 27 patients with poor runoff (runoff resistance score of > or =7), the cumulative 40 month patency rate was 90%. Among patients in whom FPV FFBP was performed as a primary procedure (no aortofemoral component), there were no graft failures.

CONCLUSIONS

FFBP performed with FPV has excellent 1-, 3, and 5-year patency rates. FPV has sustained patency for FFBP in patients with poor runoff.