Association Between Conduit Type and Outcomes After Open Repair of Popliteal Artery Aneurysms.

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Prior studies have demonstrated acceptable midterm outcomes with prosthetic conduits for above-knee bypass for occlusive disease in patients with inadequate segment great saphenous vein (GSV). In this study we aimed to investigate whether this holds true for open repair of popliteal artery aneurysms (PAA). METHODS: We queried the Vascular Quality Initiative data for patients who underwent open PAA repair (OPAR). We divided the cohort into three groups based on the conduit used GSV, other autologous veins, or prosthetic graft. Study outcomes included primary patency, freedom from major amputation, amputation-free survival, and overall survival at 1 y. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates, log-rank tests and multivariable Cox regression were used to compare outcomes between study groups. RESULTS: A total of 4016 patients underwent bypass for PAA from January 2010 to October 2021. The three cohorts were significantly different in many demographic and clinical characteristics. The adjusted odds of postoperative amputation among symptomatic patients were 3-fold higher for prosthetic conduits compared to the GSV (odds ratio, 3.20; 95% CI, 1.72-5.92; P < 0.001). For the 1-y outcomes, the adjusted risk of major amputation was almost 3-fold higher for patients with symptomatic disease undergoing bypass with prosthetic conduits (hazard ratio [HR], 2.97; 95% CI, 1.35-6.52; P = 0.007). When compared with GSV, prosthetic conduits were associated with 96% increased risk of death when used for repair in symptomatic patients (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR), 1.96; 95% CI, 1.29-2.97; P = 0.002) but no significant association with mortality in asymptomatic patients (aHR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.37-1.87; P = 0.652). When compared with GSV, prosthetic conduits were associated with a 2-fold increased risk of 1-y major amputation or death when used for repair in symptomatic patients (aHR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.40-2.94; P < 0.001) but no significant association with mortality in asymptomatic patients (aHR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.42-1.98; P = 0.816). Comparing bypass with other veins to the GSV among patients with symptomatic disease, there was no statistically significant difference in major amputation risk (HR; 2.44; 95% CI, 0.55-10.82; P = 0.242) and no difference in the adjusted risk of all-cause mortality (aHR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.26-2.44; P = 0.653). There were no differences in the adjusted risk of loss of primary patency comparing other veins to GSV (HR, 1.53; 95% CI, 0.85-2.76; P = 0.154) and prosthetic conduits to GSV (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.57-1.26; P = 0.422). CONCLUSIONS: This large study shows that among patients undergoing OPAR, 1-y primary patency does not differ between conduit types. However, prosthetic conduits are associated with significantly higher risk of amputation and death compared to GSV among symptomatic patients. Though non-GSV autologous veins are less often used for OPAR, they have comparably acceptable outcomes as GSV.