Comparative outcomes between cryopreserved cadaveric saphenous vein and spliced autogenous vein for infrainguinal bypass

Abstract

Objective Cryopreserved greater saphenous vein (CV) and spliced autogenous veins (SV) serve as alternative conduits for lower extremity revascularization when a single-segment autogenous saphenous vein is not available. This study compares the outcomes of infrainguinal bypasses using CV and two-segment SV as conduits. Methods We conducted a retrospective review of data on all lower extremity bypasses performed using CV or SV at our institution. Patients undergoing revascularization for atherosclerotic occlusive disease were included in the statistical analysis, while those with primary acute embolic and/or traumatic causes were excluded. Primary outcomes included limb loss. Secondary outcomes included primary, primary assisted, and secondary patency at one and 3 years. Results 56 patients were included in the analysis, 25 had CV bypass and 31 had SV. The groups did not significantly differ in demographics and comorbidities except for age (mean age 68 CV vs 62 SV, p = .03), and prior coronary artery bypass graft (32% CV vs 6.5% SV, p = .01). There was no statistically significant difference between CV and SV at one- and three-years in limb salvage (54.4% CV vs 61.7% SV, p = .96 and 48.3% CV vs 50.2% SV, p = .94), and bypass abandonment (44.2% CV vs 61.7% SV, p = .83 and 44.2% CV vs 44% SV, p = .85). Despite lower one and 3-year primary patency for CV compared to SV (33.3% CV vs 54.9% SV, p = .29, and 27.7% CV vs 48% SV, p = .27), the difference was statistically not significant. CV and SV had also similar one and 3-year primary assisted (41.8% CV vs 57.8% SV, p = .72 and 41.8% CV vs 44.9% SV, p = .71), and secondary patency (43.9% CV vs 61.7% SV, p = .8 and 43.9% CV vs 44% SV, p = .88), with no statistically significant difference. Conclusion In patients for whom single-segment autologous saphenous vein bypass is not an option, CV and SV show comparable limb salvage up to 3 years. SV may be a more durable option with higher patency, this was however not statistically significant in our cohort likely due to sample size.