Cryopreserved venous allograft is an acceptable conduit in patients with current or prior angioaccess graft infection.

OBJECTIVE: The durability of cryopreserved allograft has been previously demonstrated in the setting of infection. The objective of this study was to examine the safety, efficacy, patency, and cost per day of graft patency associated with using cryopreserved allograft (vein and artery) for hemodialysis access in patients with no autogenous tissue for native fistula creation and with arteriovenous graft infection or in patients at high risk for infection. METHODS: Patients implanted with cryopreserved allograft for hemodialysis access between January 2004 and January 2014 were reviewed using a standardized, multi-institutional database that evaluated demographic, comorbidity, procedural, and outcomes data. RESULTS: There were 457 patients who underwent placement of cryopreserved vein (femoral: n = 337, saphenous: n = 11) or artery (femoral: n = 109) for hemodialysis access at 20 hospitals. Primary indications for allograft use included high risk of infection in 191 patients (42%), history of infected prosthetic graft in 169 (37%), and current infection in 97 (21%). Grafts were placed more frequently in the arm (78%) than in the groin, with no difference in allograft conduit used. Mean time from placement to first hemodialysis use was 46 days (median, 34 days). Duration of functional graft use was 40 ± 7 months for cryopreserved vein and 21 ± 8 months for cryopreserved artery (P < .05), and mean number of procedures required to maintain patency at follow-up of 58 ± 21 months was 1.6 for artery and 0.9 for vein (P < .05). Local access complications occurred in 32% of patients and included late thrombosis (14%), graft stenosis (9%), late infection (9%), arteriovenous access malfunction (7%), early thrombosis (3%), and early infection (3%). Early and late infections both occurred more frequently in the groin (P = .030, P = .017, respectively), and late thrombosis occurred more frequently with cryopreserved artery (P < .001). Of the 82 patients (18%) in whom the cryopreserved allograft was placed in the same location as the excised infected prosthetic graft, 13 had infection of the allograft during the study period (early: n = 4; late: n = 9), with no significant difference in infection rate (P = .312) compared with the remainder of the study population. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year primary patency was 58%, 35%, and 17% for cryopreserved femoral vein and 49%, 17%, and 8% for artery, respectively (P < .001). Secondary patency at 1, 3, and 5 years was 90%, 78%, and 58% for cryopreserved femoral vein and 75%, 53%, and 42% for artery, respectively (P < .001). Mean allograft fee per day of graft patency was $4.78 for cryopreserved vein and $6.97 for artery (P < .05), excluding interventional costs to maintain patency. CONCLUSIONS: Cryopreserved allograft provides an excellent conduit for angioaccess when autogenous tissue is not available in patients with current or past conduit infection. Cryopreserved vein was associated with higher patency and a lower cost per day of graft patency. Cryopreserved allograft allows for immediate reconstruction through areas of infection, reduces the need for staged procedures, and allows early use for dialysis.

Treatment of superficial and perforator reflux and deep venous stenosis improves healing of chronic venous leg ulcers.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of three treatment modalities, superficial truncal vein ablation, perforator vein ablation, and deep venous stenting on venous leg ulcer (VLU) healing, as well as their cumulative effect on ulcer healing, in an attempt to establish the best algorithm for the treatment of chronic and recalcitrant VLUs. METHODS: Multicenter retrospective cohort study using a standardized database to evaluate patients with chronic venous ulcers treated between January 2013 and December 2017. RESULTS: Eight-hundred thirty-two consecutive patients with VLU were identified at 11 centers in the United States. All patients were initially managed with wound care and compression for at least 2 months. Compression and wound care management alone, used in 187 patients, led to ulcer healing in 75% of patients by 36 months. Ulcer recurrence in patients managed without surgery at 6, 12, and 24 months was 3%, 5% and 15%, respectively. Five hundred twenty-eight patients underwent ablation of incompetent superficial veins, and 344 of those also underwent incompetent perforator ablation. Patients who underwent truncal vein ablation alone had an ulcer healing rate of 51% at 36 months. Patients who received both superficial and perforator ablation were significantly younger, and had a 17% improvement in healing at 36 months (68% vs 51%, respectively), but there was no impact of combined superficial and perforator ablations on ulcer recurrence rates. One hundred thirty-four patients had stenosis of one of more lower extremity deep veins and 95 (71%) underwent endovenous stenting. Ulcer healing and recurrence rates for those who underwent stent placement alone was 77% and 27%, respectively, at 36 months. Patients who underwent deep venous stenting and ablation of both incompetent truncal and perforator veins had an ulcer healing rate of 87% at 36 months and ulcer recurrence of 26% at 24 months. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that correction of superficial truncal vein reflux, as well as deep vein stenosis, both contribute to healing of VLU. Patients who fail to heal their VLU after superficial and perforator ablation should have the iliocaval system imaged to identify hemodynamically significant stenoses or occlusions amenable to stenting, which facilitates venous ulcer healing even in patients with large ulcers.