Objective: Long-term outcomes for harvesting techniques for great saphenous vein (GSV) and its impact on the outcomes of infrainguinal arterial bypass remains largely unknown. Endoscopic GSV harvesting (EVH) has emerged as a less invasive alternative to conventional open techniques. Using the Vascular Quality initiative Vascular Implant Surveillance & Interventional Outcomes Network (VQI-VISION) database, we compared the long-term outcomes of infrainguinal arterial bypass using open and endoscopic GSV harvest techniques.
Methods: Patients who underwent infrainguinal GSV bypass between 2010 and 2019 were identified in the VQI-VISION Medicare linked database. Long-term outcomes of major/minor amputations, and reinterventions up to 5 years of follow-up were compared between continuous incisions, skip incision, and EVH, with continuous incisions being the reference group. Secondary outcomes included 30- and 90-day readmission, in addition to surgical site infections and patency rates at 6 months to 2 years postoperatively. Survival analysis using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression hazard models were utilized to compare outcomes between groups. To adjust for multiple comparisons between the study groups, a P value of 2.5% was considered significant.
Results: Among the 8915 patients included in the study, continuous and skip vein harvest techniques were used in 44.4% and 43.4% of cases each, whereas 12.3% underwent EVH. The utilization of EVH remained relatively stable at around 12% throughout the study period. Compared with GSV harvest using continuous incisions, EVH was associated with higher rates of reintervention at 1 year (46.5% vs 41.3%; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-1.41; P = .01]. However, no significant difference was observed between EVH and continuous incisions, and between skip and continuous incisions in terms of long-term reintervention or major and minor amputations on adjusted analysis. Compared with continuous incision vein harvest, both EVH and skip incisions were associated with lower surgical site infection rates within the first 6 months post-bypass (aHR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.35-0.82 and aHR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.53-0.87, respectively). Loss of primary, primary-assisted, and secondary patency was higher after EVH compared with continuous incision vein harvest. Among surgeons performing EVH, comparable long-term outcomes were observed regardless of low (<4 cases/year), medium (4-7 cases/year), or high procedural volumes (>7 cases/year).
Conclusions: Despite higher 1-year reintervention rates, EVH for infrainguinal arterial bypass is not associated with a significant difference in long-term reintervention or amputation rates compared with other harvesting techniques. These outcomes are not influenced by procedural volumes for EVH technique.
Keywords: Continuous incision; Endoscopic; Lower extremity bypass; Skip incision; Vein harvest.
Copyright © 2024 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.