Autologous saphenous vein and heparin-bonded expanded polytetrafluoroethylene as graft materials for below-the-knee femoro-popliteal bypass in patients with critical limb ischemia: A propensity score-matched analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes of heparin bonded expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (HePTFE) and autologous saphenous vein (ASV) in patients undergoing below-knee (BK) femoro-popliteal bypass for critical limb ischemia (CLI). DESIGN: Retrospective single-centre matched case-control study. METHODS: From 2003 to 2019, 275 consecutive BK bypasses for CLI were performed, 109 with the ASV and 166 with a HePTFE graft. All the baseline characteristics that were reliably measured and were potentially relevant in the decision-making process were included as confounders in a logistic regression model and the factors that were significantly different between the two groups then used to perform a propensity matching analysis. Propensity score-based matching was performed in a 1:1 ratio to compare outcomes. Arterial hypertension, hyperlipemia, the need for tibial anastomosis at the distal level and the run-off status were the covariates included in the matching. Follow-up outcomes were estimated by Kaplan-Meier methods and compared with log rank test. RESULTS: After propensity matching, 101 HePTFE bypasses were matched with 101 ASV bypasses. The median duration of follow-up was 37 months (range 1-192). The 5-year survival rate was 67.5% (standard error (SE) 0.05) in the HePTFe group and 64.5% (SE 0.06) in the ASV group (p = 0.8, log rank 0.04). Primary patency rates were 38% (SE 0.06) in the HePTFE group and 41% (SE 0.06) in the ASV group (p = 0.7, log rank 0.3). Also assisted primary patency and secondary patency rates did not differ in the two groups. Amputation-free survival was 53% (SE 0.05) in the HePTFE group and 58% (SE 0.06) in the ASF group (p = 0.6, log rank 0.2). CONCLUSIONS: HePTFE provided 5-year similar results to those obtained with use of the ASV in equivalent patients with CLI undergoing below-knee or tibial bypass.

A Matched Case-Control Study on Early and Late Results of Carotid Endarterectomy Performed in Young Patients.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to describe the perioperative and long-term results of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in patients aged 60 or less and compare them to patients of more advanced age in a retrospective single-centre case-control study. METHODS: From January 1996 to December 2014, 5893 consecutive CEAs were performed in our institution. Data concerning these interventions were prospectively inserted in a dedicated database. A retrospective analysis of that database was performed and 457 interventions performed in patients aged 60 or less were found (group 1). The control group was represented by 457 interventions selected from the remaining 5436 by a one-to-one coarsened exact matching on the basis of all the baseline demographic and clinical covariates significantly different in the two groups (group 2). The two groups were compared in terms of intraoperative technical features and perioperative (<30 days) results of interventions (transient ischaemic attack-TIA, stroke and death rates) with χ 2 test. Follow-up data were analysed by life-table analysis (Kaplan-Meier test) in terms of survival, stroke-free and neurological symptom-free survival, freedom from severe restenosis and occlusion and freedom from reintervention, and the results in the two groups were compared by means of log rank test. RESULTS: There were no differences between the two groups in terms of clinical presentation and of degree of carotid stenosis on operated side. Anaesthesiological and surgical details were also similar between the two groups. Thirty-day stroke and death rate was 0.6% in both groups (p = 0.9). Follow-up was available for 877 patients (96% of the study group) with a mean duration of 50 months. Estimated 10-year survival rates were 85% in group 1 (SE 0.03) and 76% in group 2 (SE 0.04, p = 0.003, log rank 8.9). At the same time interval, stroke-free survival was also significantly better in group 1 (85%, SE 0.035) than in group 2 (72.5%, SE 0.03; p = 0.002, log rank 10.1). The corresponding figures in terms of any neurological symptom-free survival were 82.8% in group 1 (SE 0.04) and 70.3% in group 2 (SE 0.04, p = 0.002, log rank 9.7). Estimated freedom from severe restenosis and occlusion was 76.5% in group 1 (SE 0.04) and 88.5% in group 2 (SE 0.035, p = 0.001, log rank 11.9). Disease recurrence was symptomatic in six cases, three in each group. Estimated freedom from reintervention rates at 10 years was 87% in group 1 (SE 0.035) and 91.5% in group 2 (SE 0.03; p = 0.2, log rank 1.1). CONCLUSIONS: CEA in patents aged 60 or less is safe and provides significantly better long-term results than those obtained in patients over 60 in terms of survival and stroke-free survival. Younger patients appear to have higher rates of recurrent carotid stenosis compared to the older cohort; however, these rarely require a secondary intervention.