The Upper-Arm Basilic-Cephalic Loop: A Valueable Alternative for Below-Knee Arterial Reconstruction. (May 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Enzmann, Florian K.; Metzger, Peter; Martin, Julio Ellacuriaga San; Dabernig, Werner; Akhavan, Fatema; Hölzenbein, Thomas; Nierlich, Patrick
• Is Part Of: Vascular & endovascular surgery. Volume 55:Number 4(2021)
• Page Start: 348
• Page End: 354
• Publication Date: 2021-05
• Subjects: peripheral vein bypass -- alternative vein bypass -- arm vein -- peripheral artery disease; Blood-vessels -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Blood-vessels -- Endoscopic surgery -- Periodicals; Vascular Surgical Procedures -- Periodicals; Angioplasty -- Periodicals; Surgical Procedures, Minimally Invasive -- Periodicals; Vascular Diseases -- surgery -- Periodicals; Vaisseaux sanguins -- Chirurgie -- Périodiques; Vaisseaux sanguins -- Chirurgie endoscopique -- Périodiques; 617.41
• DOI: 10.1177/1538574420980610
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1538-5744

Abstract

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.