-
Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?
Alternative Autologous Vein Grafts versus Single-Segment Great Saphenous Vein in Lower Extremity Bypass Surgery-Single-Center Study
E. Biroš, R. Staffa, M. Krejčí, M. Ferkodič, D. Maduda, Z. Bednařík
Jazyk angličtina Země Nizozemsko
Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, srovnávací studie
- MeSH
- amputace MeSH
- autologní transplantace MeSH
- časové faktory MeSH
- dolní končetina * krevní zásobení MeSH
- ischemie * chirurgie patofyziologie diagnostické zobrazování MeSH
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- okluze cévního štěpu patofyziologie etiologie chirurgie MeSH
- onemocnění periferních arterií * chirurgie patofyziologie diagnostické zobrazování mortalita MeSH
- průchodnost cév MeSH
- retrospektivní studie MeSH
- rizikové faktory MeSH
- senioři nad 80 let MeSH
- senioři MeSH
- transplantace cév * škodlivé účinky MeSH
- vena saphena * transplantace patofyziologie MeSH
- výsledek terapie MeSH
- záchrana končetiny MeSH
- Check Tag
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- mužské pohlaví MeSH
- senioři nad 80 let MeSH
- senioři MeSH
- ženské pohlaví MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- srovnávací studie MeSH
BACKGROUND: Studies comparing alternative autologous vein grafts (AAVGs) to single-segment great saphenous vein (ssGSV) grafts report mixed results. The status of AAVG as first choice when ssGSV is unavailable is not unequivocal based on current evidence. Our study compares results between AAVG and ssGSV in lower extremity bypass (LEB) surgery. METHODS: A single-center retrospective cohort study involving all patients who underwent infrainguinal bypass using AAVG (arm veins, spliced arm, or arm-leg veins) and ssGSV from April 2019 to June 2023. Study endpoints were patency rates and amputation-free survival (AFS). RESULTS: There were 65 (20.8%) patients in the AAVG group, 247 (79.2%) in the ssGSV group. Chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) was the most frequent indication for surgery (AAVG 54/65, 83.1% vs. ssGSV 170/247, 68.8%), followed by acute limb ischemia (ALI) (AAVG 6/65, 9.2% vs. ssGSV 28/247, 11.3%); claudicants were presented only in the ssGSV group (AAVG 0/65, 0% vs. ssGSV 44/247, 17.8%). More redo operations occurred in AAVG than in the ssGSV group (23/65, 35.4% vs. 26/247, 10.5%; P < 0.001). Spliced vein grafts represented 87.7% (57/65) of AAVG bypasses. The median follow-up was 20.1 months for the AAVG group and 27.5 for the ssGSV group. Three-year patency rates between AAVG versus ssGSV: primary patency (PP) 59.3% ± 8.2% versus 69.2% ± 3.8%, P = 0.113; primary assisted patency (PAP) 75.2% ± 7.1% versus 73.5% ± 3.4%, P = 0.790; secondary patency (SP) 74.9% ± 7.1% versus 74.4% ± 3.4%, P = 0.667; did not display significant difference between groups nor did 3-year AFS in CLTI patients; 70.7% ± 7.9% versus 54.6% ± 4.8%; P = 0.273. CONCLUSION: AAVGs should be the first conduit choice when ssGSV is unavailable. Mid-term patency rates do not differ from those of ssGSV grafts despite higher reintervention rate.
Citace poskytuje Crossref.org
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc25015964
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20250731091408.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 250708e20250127ne f 000 0|eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 7_
- $a 10.1016/j.avsg.2025.01.027 $2 doi
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)39880284
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a ne
- 100 1_
- $a Biroš, Ernest $u 2nd Department of Surgery, Centre for Vascular Disease, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University and St. Anne's University Hospital, Brno, Czech Republic. Electronic address: ernest.biros@fnusa.cz
- 245 10
- $a Alternative Autologous Vein Grafts versus Single-Segment Great Saphenous Vein in Lower Extremity Bypass Surgery-Single-Center Study / $c E. Biroš, R. Staffa, M. Krejčí, M. Ferkodič, D. Maduda, Z. Bednařík
- 520 9_
- $a BACKGROUND: Studies comparing alternative autologous vein grafts (AAVGs) to single-segment great saphenous vein (ssGSV) grafts report mixed results. The status of AAVG as first choice when ssGSV is unavailable is not unequivocal based on current evidence. Our study compares results between AAVG and ssGSV in lower extremity bypass (LEB) surgery. METHODS: A single-center retrospective cohort study involving all patients who underwent infrainguinal bypass using AAVG (arm veins, spliced arm, or arm-leg veins) and ssGSV from April 2019 to June 2023. Study endpoints were patency rates and amputation-free survival (AFS). RESULTS: There were 65 (20.8%) patients in the AAVG group, 247 (79.2%) in the ssGSV group. Chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) was the most frequent indication for surgery (AAVG 54/65, 83.1% vs. ssGSV 170/247, 68.8%), followed by acute limb ischemia (ALI) (AAVG 6/65, 9.2% vs. ssGSV 28/247, 11.3%); claudicants were presented only in the ssGSV group (AAVG 0/65, 0% vs. ssGSV 44/247, 17.8%). More redo operations occurred in AAVG than in the ssGSV group (23/65, 35.4% vs. 26/247, 10.5%; P < 0.001). Spliced vein grafts represented 87.7% (57/65) of AAVG bypasses. The median follow-up was 20.1 months for the AAVG group and 27.5 for the ssGSV group. Three-year patency rates between AAVG versus ssGSV: primary patency (PP) 59.3% ± 8.2% versus 69.2% ± 3.8%, P = 0.113; primary assisted patency (PAP) 75.2% ± 7.1% versus 73.5% ± 3.4%, P = 0.790; secondary patency (SP) 74.9% ± 7.1% versus 74.4% ± 3.4%, P = 0.667; did not display significant difference between groups nor did 3-year AFS in CLTI patients; 70.7% ± 7.9% versus 54.6% ± 4.8%; P = 0.273. CONCLUSION: AAVGs should be the first conduit choice when ssGSV is unavailable. Mid-term patency rates do not differ from those of ssGSV grafts despite higher reintervention rate.
- 650 _2
- $a lidé $7 D006801
- 650 _2
- $a retrospektivní studie $7 D012189
- 650 _2
- $a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
- 650 12
- $a vena saphena $x transplantace $x patofyziologie $7 D012501
- 650 _2
- $a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
- 650 _2
- $a senioři $7 D000368
- 650 _2
- $a průchodnost cév $7 D014654
- 650 12
- $a onemocnění periferních arterií $x chirurgie $x patofyziologie $x diagnostické zobrazování $x mortalita $7 D058729
- 650 _2
- $a časové faktory $7 D013997
- 650 _2
- $a lidé středního věku $7 D008875
- 650 12
- $a dolní končetina $x krevní zásobení $7 D035002
- 650 _2
- $a rizikové faktory $7 D012307
- 650 12
- $a transplantace cév $x škodlivé účinky $7 D058017
- 650 _2
- $a autologní transplantace $7 D014182
- 650 _2
- $a záchrana končetiny $7 D023821
- 650 _2
- $a výsledek terapie $7 D016896
- 650 12
- $a ischemie $x chirurgie $x patofyziologie $x diagnostické zobrazování $7 D007511
- 650 _2
- $a amputace $7 D000671
- 650 _2
- $a okluze cévního štěpu $x patofyziologie $x etiologie $x chirurgie $7 D006083
- 650 _2
- $a senioři nad 80 let $7 D000369
- 655 _2
- $a časopisecké články $7 D016428
- 655 _2
- $a srovnávací studie $7 D003160
- 700 1_
- $a Staffa, Robert $u 2nd Department of Surgery, Centre for Vascular Disease, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University and St. Anne's University Hospital, Brno, Czech Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Krejčí, Miroslav $u 2nd Department of Surgery, Centre for Vascular Disease, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University and St. Anne's University Hospital, Brno, Czech Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Ferkodič, Martin $u 2nd Department of Surgery, Centre for Vascular Disease, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University and St. Anne's University Hospital, Brno, Czech Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Maduda, Dominik $u 2nd Department of Surgery, Centre for Vascular Disease, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University and St. Anne's University Hospital, Brno, Czech Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Bednařík, Zdeněk $u 1st Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University and St. Anne's University Hospital, Brno, Czech Republic
- 773 0_
- $w MED00005646 $t Annals of vascular surgery $x 1615-5947 $g Roč. 114 (20250127), s. 13-23
- 856 41
- $u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39880284 $y Pubmed
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y - $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20250708 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20250731091403 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 2366663 $s 1253089
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC-MEDLINE
- BMC __
- $a 2025 $b 114 $c - $d 13-23 $e 20250127 $i 1615-5947 $m Annals of vascular surgery $n Ann Vasc Surg $x MED00005646
- LZP __
- $a Pubmed-20250708
