Objective: To assess the patency of the PROPATEN Graft in lower extremity bypasses. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed all lower extremity bypasses with the PROPATEN Graft from 2007-2009 at a single institution. There were 68 implants—56% male; mean age 69. Comorbidities included hypertension (HTN; 81%), hyperlipidemia (72%), coronary artery disease (CAD; 74%), and smoking (59%). Most patients were Rutherford category 4 or higher. A total of 34% of patients had only 1 runoff vessel; 10% of patients required a complex concomitant procedure with sequential extremity revascularization. Statistics were via Kaplan Meier. Results: Mean follow-up was10.4 ± 8.0 months (0-30). Patency was excellent in all positions. Primary patency for all patients was 94.0% and 86.0% at 30 days and 18 months, respectively. Limb salvage at 30 days was 95%, and at 18 months was 90%. No patients developed HIT. Ten patients lost graft patency. These patients had severe Peripheral Vascular Disease (PVD), with rest pain or tissue loss, poor runoff (no runoff or single vessel runoff), compromised inflow, and restored competitive flow. Fifty percent of the failed grafts were in the infrapopliteal position. Endovascular intervention and graft thrombectomy to restore patency was attempted in 2 patients and was unsuccessful. Conclusion: The GORE PROPATEN Vascular Graft demonstrates excellent patency in all arterial positions and may be the conduit of choice for all prosthetic bypasses.
Taylor Jr. LM , Edwards JM, Porter JMPresent status of reversed vein bypass grafting: five year results of a modern series. J Vasc Surg.1990;11(2):193-206.
2.
Ricci MA, Graham AM, Symes JFComparison of in-situ and reversed saphenous vein grafts for infrageniculate bypass. Can J Surg. 1990;33(3):216-220.
3.
Bush HL, Nabseth DC, Curl GR, O’Hara ET, Johnson WC, Vollman RW In situ saphenous vein bypass grafts for limb salvage. A current fad or a viable alternative to reversed vein bypass grafts. Am J Surg. 1985;149(4):177-180.
4.
Sayers RD, Raptis S., Berce M., Miller JHLong-term results of femorotibial bypass with vein or polytetrafluoroethylene . Br J Surg. 1998;85(7):934-938.
5.
Stonebridge PA, Prescott RJ, Ruckley CVRandomized trial comparing infrainguinal polytetrafluoroethylene bypass grafting with and without vein interposition cuff at the distal anastomosis . J Vasc Surg. 1997;26(4):543-550.
6.
Johnson WC, Lee KKA comparative evaluation of polytetrafluoroethylene, umbilical vein, and saphenous vein bypass grafts for femoro-popliteal above-knee revascularization: a prospective randomized Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study. J Vasc Surg. 2000;32(2):268-277.
7.
Klinkert P., Post PN, Breslau PJ, van Bockel JHSaphenous vein versus PTFE for above-knee femoropopliteal bypass. A review of the literature. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2004 ;27(4):357-362.
8.
Begovac PC, Thomson RC, Fisher JL, Hughson A., Gällhagen A.Improvements in GORE-TEX® Vascular Graft performance by Carmeda® BioActive Surface heparin immobilization. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2003;25(5):432-437.
9.
Lin PH, Bush R.l, Yao Q., Lumsden AB, Chen C.Evaluation of platelet deposition and neointimal hyperplasia of heparin-coated small-caliber ePTFE graftfsin a canine femoral artery bypass model. J Surg Res. 2004;118(1):45-52.
10.
Lin PH, Chen C., Bush RL, Lumsden AB, Hanson SRSmall caliber heparin-coated ePTFE grafts reduce platelet deposition and neointimal hyperplasia in a baboon model. J Vasc Surg. 2004; 39(6):1322-1328.
11.
Laredo J., Xue L., Husak VA, et al. Silyl-heparin bonding improves the patency and in vivo thromboresistance of carbon-coated polytetrafluoroethylene vascular grafts. J Vasc Surg. 2004;39(5): 1059-1065.
12.
McCollum C., Kenchington G., Alexander C., Franks PJ, Greenhalgh RMPTFE or HUV for femoro-popliteal bypass: a multi-centre trial. Eur J Vasc Surg. 1991;5(4):435-443.
13.
Devine C., McCollum C.for The North West Femoro-Popliteal Trial Participants. Heparin-bonded Dacron or polytetrafluoroethylene for femoropopliteal bypass grafting: a multicenter trial. J Vasc Surg. 2001;33(3):533-539.
14.
Devine C., McCollum C.for The North West Femoro-Popliteal Trial Participants. Heparin bonded Dacron or polytetrafluoroethylene for femoropopliteal bypass: five-year results of a prospective randomized multicenter clinical trial. J Vasc Surg. 2004;40(5):924-931.
15.
Quinones-Baldrich WJ, Prego AA, Ucelay-Gomez R., et al. Long-term results of infrainguinal revascularization with polytetrafluoroethylene: a ten-year experience. J Vasc Surg. 1992; 16(2):209-217.
16.
Walluscheck KP, Bierkandt S., Brandt M., Cremer J.Infrainguinal ePTFE vascular graft with bioactive surface heparin bonding first clinical results. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 2005;46(4):425-430.
17.
Battaglia G. , Tringale R., Monaca V.Retrospective comparision of a heparin bonded ePTFE graft and saphenous vein for infragenicular bypass: implications for standard treatment protocol. J Cardiovasc Surg ( Torino). 2006;47(1):41-47.
18.
Bosiers M., Deloose K., Verbist J., et al. Hearin-bonded expanded polytetrafluoroethylene vascular graft for femoropopliteal and femorocrural bypass grafting: 1 year results. J Vasc Surg. 2006; 43(2):313-319.
19.
Peeters P., Verbist J., Deloose K., Bosiers M.Results with heparin bonded polytetrafluoroethylene grafts for femorodistal bypasses. J Cardiovasc Surg. 2006;47(4):407-413.
20.
Dorrucci V. , Griselli F., Petralia G., Spinamano L., Adornetto R.Heparin-bonded expanded polytetrafluoroethylene grafts for infragenicular bypass in patients with critical limb ischemia: 2 year results. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino ). 2008;49(2): 145-149.
21.
Daenens K., Schepers S., Fourneau I., Houthoofd S., Nevelsteen A.Heparin-bonded expanded polytetrafluoroethylene grafts compared with vein grafts in femoropopliteal and femorocrural bypasses: 1 and 2 year results . J Vasc Surg.2009;49(5): 1210-1216.
22.
Losel-Sadee H., Alefelder C.Heparin-bonded expanded polytetrafluoroethylene graft for infragenicular bypass: five year results. J Cardiovasc Surg.2009;50(23):339-343.
23.
Guyton JR, Rosenberg RD, Clowes AW, Karnovsky MJInhibition of rat arterial smooth muscle cell proliferation by heparin: in vivo studies with anticoagulant and nonanticoagulant heparin. Circ Res. 1980;46(5):625-634.
24.
Clowes AW, Karnowsky MJSuppression by heparin of smooth muscle cell proliferation in injured arteries . Nature. 1977; 265(5595):625-626.
25.
Larm O., Larsson R., Olsson P.Surface-immobilized heparin. In: Lane DA, Lindahl U, Arnold E, eds. Heparin. London , 1988; 597-608.
26.
Li-Chien Hsu .Heparin-coating of bypass circuits. Perfusion. 1991;6(3):209-219.
27.
Anderson AB , Clapper DLCoatings for blood-contacting devices. Med Plas Biomater. 1998;5:18-26.
28.
Al-Lamee K. , Taktak Y.New methods of surface modification and covalent attachment of heparin. Med Device Technol. 1998;9(1): 24-27.
29.
Kim SW, Jacobs H.Design of nonthrombogenic polymer surfaces for blood-contacting medical devices . Blood Purif. 1996;14(5): 357-372.
30.
Heyligers JM , Verhagen HJ, Rotmans JI, et al. Heparin immobilization reduces thrombogenicity of small-caliber expanded polytetrafluoroethylene grafts. J Vasc Surg. 2006;43(3):587-591.
31.
Heyligers JM , Lisman T., Verhagen JM, Weeterings C., de Groot PG, Moll FLA heparin-bonded vascular graft generates no systemic effect on markers of hemostasis activation or detectable heparin-induced thrombocytopenia-associated antibodies in humans. J Vasc Surg . 2008;47(2):324-329.
32.
Thakur S., Pigott JP, Comerota AJHeparin-induced thrombocytopenia after implantation of a heparin-bonded polytetrafluoroethylene lower extremity bypass graft: a case report and plan for management. J Vasc Surg.2009;49(4):1037-1040.
