Use of Omniflow® II Biosynthetic Graft for the Treatment of Vascular Graft and Endograft Infections.

BACKGROUND: Vascular graft/endograft infection is a rare but life-threatening complication of cardiovascular surgery and remains a surgical challenge. Several different graft materials are available for the treatment of vascular graft/endograft infection, each having its own advantages and disadvantages. Biosynthetic vascular grafts have shown low reinfection rates and could be a potential second best after autologous veins in the treatment of vascular graft/endograft infection. Therefore, the aim of our study was to evaluate the efficacy and morbidity of Omniflow® II for the treatment of vascular graft/endograft infection. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective cohort study was performed to evaluate the use of Omniflow® II in the abdominal and peripheral region to treat vascular graft/endograft infection between January 2014 and December 2021. Primary outcome was recurrent vascular graft infection. Secondary outcomes included primary patency, primary assisted patency, secondary patency, all-cause mortality, and major amputation. RESULTS: Fifty-two patients were included with a median follow-up duration of 26.5 (10.8-54.8) months. Nine (17%) grafts were implanted in intracavitary position and 43 (83%) in peripheral position. Most grafts were used as femoral interposition (n = 12, 23%), femoro-femoral crossover (n = 10, 19%), femoro-popliteal (n = 8, 15%), and aorto-bifemoral (n = 8, 15%) graft. Fifteen (29%) grafts were implanted extra-anatomically and 37 (71%) in situ. Eight patients (15%) presented with reinfection during follow-up, most of these patients received an aorto-bifemoral graft (n = 3, 38%). Intracavitary vascular grafting had a 33% (n = 3) reinfection rate and peripheral grafting 12% (n = 5; P = 0.025). The estimated primary patencies at 1, 2, and 3 years were 75%, 72%, and 72% for peripherally located grafts and 58% (at all timepoints) for intracavitary grafts (P = 0.815). Secondary patencies at 1, 2, and 3 years were 77% (at all timepoints) for peripherally located prostheses and 75% (at all timepoints) for intracavitary prostheses (P = 0.731). A significantly higher mortality during follow-up was observed in patients who received an intracavitary graft compared to patients with a peripheral graft (P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the efficacy and safety of the Omniflow® II biosynthetic prosthesis for the treatment of vascular graft/endograft infection, in absence of suitable venous material, with acceptable reinfection, patency, and freedom of amputation prevalences, especially in replacing peripheral vascular graft/endograft infection. However, a control group with either venous reconstruction or another alternative graft is needed to make firmer conclusions.

Outcomes of Omniflow® II prosthesis used for revascularization in the femoral tract both in infected and non-infected setting.

BACKGROUND: Evidence regarding the outcomes of Omniflow® II prosthesis in peripheral arterial revascularization at different anatomical sites and for different indications is scarce. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of the Omniflow® II used at various positions within the femoral tract both in infected and non-infected setting. METHODS: Patients who underwent reconstructive lower leg vascular surgery with implantation of an Omniflow® II from 2014 until 2021 at five medical centers were retrospectively included (N.=142). Patients were subdivided into the following categories: femoro-femoral crossover (N.=19), femoral interposition (N.=18), femoro-popliteal (above-the-knee [N.=25; AK] or below-the-knee [N.=47; BK]), and femoro-crural bypass grafts (N.=33). Primary outcome was primary patency and secondary outcomes included primary assisted patency, secondary patency, major amputation, vascular graft infection, and mortality. Outcomes were compared according to different subgroups and the surgical setting (infected versus non-infected). RESULTS: The median follow-up was 35.0 (17.5-54.3) months. Three years primary patency of 58% was observed for femoro-femoral crossover bypass, 75% for femoral interposition graft, 44% for femoro-popliteal above-the-knee bypass, 42% for femoro-popliteal below-the-knee bypass, and 27% in the femoro-crural position (P=0.006). Freedom from major amputation at three years were 84% for femoro-femoral crossover bypass, 88% for femoral interposition bypass, 90% for femoro-popliteal AK bypass, 83% for femoro-popliteal BK bypass, and 50% for femoro-crural bypass (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the safety and feasibility of the use of Omniflow® II for femoro-femoral crossover-, femoral interposition-, and femoro-popliteal (AK and BK) bypass. Omniflow® II seems to be less suitable for femoro-crural bypass with a significantly lower patency compared to other positions.

Patient profiles and health status outcomes for peripheral artery disease in high-income countries: a comparison between the USA and The Netherlands.

AIMS: Peripheral artery disease (PAD) is a global disease. Understanding variability in patient profiles and PAD-specific health status outcomes across health system countries can provide insights into improving PAD care. We compared these features between two high-income countries, the USA and The Netherlands. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients were identified from the patient-centred outcomes related to treatment practices in peripheral arterial disease: investigating trajectories study-a prospective, international registry of patients presenting to vascular specialty clinics for new onset, or exacerbation of PAD symptoms. PAD-specific health status was measured with the peripheral artery questionnaire. General linear mixed models for repeated measures were used to study baseline, 3, 6, and 12-month PAD-specific health status outcomes (peripheral artery questionnaire summary score) between the USA and The Netherlands. Out of a total of 1114 patients, 748 patients (67.1%) were from the USA and 366 (32.9%) from The Netherlands. US patients with PAD were older, with more financial barriers, higher cardiovascular risk factor burden, and lower referral rates for exercise treatment (P < 0.001). They had significantly worse PAD-specific adjusted health status scores at presentation, 3, 6, and 12 months of follow-up (all P < 0.0001). Magnitude of change in 1-year health status scores was smaller in the US cohort when compared with The Netherlands. CONCLUSION: Compared with the Dutch cohort, US patients had worse adjusted PAD-specific health status scores at all time point, improving less over time, despite treatment. Leveraging inter-country differences in care and outcomes could provide important insights into optimizing PAD outcomes. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01419080? term=portrait&rank=1 NCT01419080.

Remote endarterectomy versus supragenicular bypass surgery for long occlusions of the superficial femoral artery: medium-term results of a randomized controlled trial (the REVAS trial).

BACKGROUND: To investigate the optimal surgical treatment, remote superficial femoral artery endarterectomy (RSFAE) or supragenicular bypass, for Transatlantic Inter-Society Consensus (TASC) C and D lesions of the superficial femoral artery. Medium-term results will be presented. METHODS: The study randomized 116 patients, 61 to RSFAE and 55 to supragenicular bypass surgery. Indications for surgery were claudication in 77, rest pain in 21, or tissue loss in 18. RESULTS: Primary patency after 3 years of follow-up was 47% for RSFAE and 60% for bypass (p = 0.107), assisted primary patency was 63 and 69% (p = 0.406), and secondary patency was 69 and 73% (p = 0.541), respectively. For venous (n = 25) and prosthetic grafts (n = 30) at 3-year follow-up, primary patency was 65% and 56 versus 47% for RSFAE (p = 0.143), assisted primary patency was 84% and 56 versus 63% for RSFAE (p = 0.052), and secondary patency was 89% and 59 versus 69% for RSFAE (p = 0.046), respectively. Limb salvage was 97% after RSFAE and 95% after bypass surgery (p = 0.564). CONCLUSION: RSFAE is a minimally invasive option for surgical repair of TASC C and D superficial femoral artery obstructions, with assisted primary and secondary patency rates comparable with bypass surgery. Venous bypass grafting is superior to both RSFAE and polytetrafluoroethylene grafting, but only 45% of patients had a sufficient saphenous vein available. If the saphenous vein is not applicable, RSFAE should be considered because it is less invasive and prosthetic graft material can be avoided.