A randomized prospective study of valvulotome efficacy in in situ reconstructions

Valvulotomy of the great saphenous vein in ex situ non-reversed and in situ setting: a multicenter post-market study to assess the safety and efficacy of the AndraValvulotome™"

PURPOSE

To evaluate the safety and technical success of the AndraValvulotome™ device (Andramed GmbH, Reutlingen, Germany) in patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD) requiring bypass surgery using the great saphenous vein (GSV) as graft.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, post-market observational study conducted in 2021 in 11 German centers. Safety and efficacy data were prospectively collected and analyzed. Primary endpoints were the absence of device-related serious adverse events until 30 ± 7 days follow-up, the clinical efficacy of valvulotomy, which was defined as pulsatile blood flow in the bypass and the number of insufficiently destroyed vein valves. Secondary endpoints were the number of valvulotomy passages, the primary patency rate of the venous bypass (determined by a color-duplex sonography showing a normal blood flow through the bypass and absence of stenosis or occlusion), and the primary technical success defined as the absence of product-specific (serious) adverse events and clinical efficacy.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine patients were enrolled. The mean age of the patients was 71 years (46-91), and 74.6% were males. The vein material used for bypass grafting had a median length of 47.5 cm (range 20-70 cm) with a median diameter of 5.0 mm (range 3-6 mm) and 4.0 mm (range 2-6 mm) in the proximal and distal segments, respectively. The technical success rate was 96.6%. The primary patency rate was 89.9% at 30 days follow-up. The clinical efficacy was rated as very good in 81% of patients, fair in 17%, and poor in 2%. Between 1 and 5 (average 2.9) valvulotome passages were performed. One product-related serious adverse event was recorded (bypass vein dissection).

CONCLUSION

The AndraValvulotome™ can be considered a safe and effective device to disrupt venous valves during in situ non-reversed bypass surgeries using GSV grafts in patients with PAD.

Mills valvulotome reduces distal vein injuries and improves follow-up freedom from restenosis in patients undergoing infrainguinal in-situ saphenous vein bypass

BACKGROUND

In this study, the early and mid-term outcomes of the use of the Mills valvulotome in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) undergoing infrainguinal in-situ saphenous vein bypass were investigated.

METHODS

From January 2018 until December 2019, 153 consecutive CLTI patients from 7 centers have been treated with infrainguinal in-situ saphenous vein bypass. In all patients the devalvulation of the great saphenous vein (GSV) was obtained with the use of the HYDRO LeMaitre^® valvulotome (LeMaitre Vascular, Burlington, MA, USA). Eighty-six patients (56.2%) received the additional treatment of the LeMills valvulotome (LeMaitre Vascular) to disrupt the distal valves of the GSV (Group MV), whilst in the remaining 67 patients (43.8%) this adjunctive device was not used (Group no-MV). Initial outcome measures including intraoperative vein injuries were assessed and compared. At 2-year follow-up, estimated outcomes of primary patency, primary assisted patency, secondary patency, freedom from distal vein restenosis, and limb salvage were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves and compared between groups using the log-rank test.

RESULTS

Intraoperatively, the overall rate of vein injuries related to the devalvulation was 5.2% (8 cases) with four cases in both groups (4/86, 4.6%, Group MV vs. 4/67, 6%, Group no-MV; P=0.49). Overall, 4 lesions occurred in the distal portion of the GSV and were all reported in Group no-MV (0/86, 0%, Group MV vs. 4/67, 6%, Group no-MV; P=0.03). Median duration of follow-up was 12 months (IQR: 6-24). At 2-year follow-up there were no differences between the two groups in terms of primary patency (69.9% Group MV vs. 79.8% Group no-MV, P=0.08), primary assisted patency (85.4% Group MV vs. 90.5% Group no-MV, P=0.37), secondary patency (94.2% Group MV vs. 92.1% Group no-MV, P=0.61), and limb salvage (97.4% Group MV vs. 98.2% Group no-MV, P=0.74). Patients in Group MV had a higher rate of freedom from distal vein restenosis (92.2% Group MV vs. 76% Group no-MV, P=0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Adjunctive use of the Mills valvulotome (LeMaitre Vascular) reduces intraoperative distal vein injuries and improves the 2-year freedom from distal vein restenosis in patients undergoing infrainguinal in-situ saphenous vein bypass.

The results of in situ saphenous vein bypass for infrainguinal arterial reconstruction: Comparison between two types of valvulotomes

PURPOSE

To evaluate the authors' experiences with in situ saphenous vein bypasses that were performed using two types of valvulotomes and to respectively compare their efficacy on the basis of the operative outcomes.

METHODS

Between June 1993 and December 2008, 103 constructive in situ saphenous vein bypasses were performed, of which 53 were performed between 1993 and 2000 using an Insitucat valvulotome (B Braun Melsungen AG, Germany), and 50 were performed between 2000 and 2008 using a LeMaitre valvulotome (LeMaitre Vascular Inc, USA).

RESULTS

There were no statistical differences with regard to age, sex and bypass procedures between the two groups. Critical limb ischemia (P=0.021) and diabetes (P=0.005) were more frequent in the LeMaitre group than the Insitucat group. Intraoperative graft revisions (P=0.079) and graft spasms (P=0.638) were less frequent in the LeMaitre group. Graft failures in the perioperative period or within the first year were less frequent in the LeMaitre group. The five-year cumulative primary patency rates were 63.2% and 59.8% in the LeMaitre and Insitucat groups, respectively (χ(2)=0.390, not significant). The five-year cumulative secondary patency rates were 91.9% and 81.7% in the LeMaitre and Insitucat groups, respectively (χ(2)=2.690, not significant).

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggested that there were no significant differences in the outcome and adverse effects between the two types of valvulotomes for in situ saphenous vein bypass.