CRITERIA FOR IDENTIFICATION OF THE AT-RISK INFRAINGUINAL BYPASS GRAFT

被引:31
作者
DAVIES, AH
MAGEE, TR
TENNANT, SGW
LAMONT, PM
BAIRD, RN
HORROCKS, M
机构
[1] Department of Vascular Studies, Bristol Royal Infirmary, Bristol
来源
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF VASCULAR SURGERY | 1994年 / 8卷 / 03期
关键词
GRAFT SURVEILLANCE; FEMORODISTAL BYPASS; DUPLEX; IMPEDANCE;
D O I
10.1016/S0950-821X(05)80148-3
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
The criteria for identifying the "at-risk" femorodistal bypass are controversial. Eighty-eight patients were entered into a surveillance programme using ankle-brachial pressure indices (ABPI), colour Duplex and intraarterial digital subtraction angiography (IADSA). Changes in ABPI of more than 0.1 identified 12/22 (51%) grafts thought to be "at-risk". In the 88 grafts, a PMV (peak mean velocity) <45 cm per second had a sensitivity and specificity of 55 and 85% compared to 91 and 95% if PMV <45 cm per second and a V2/V1 ratio of greater than 2 was used to identify the 22 grafts "at-risk". In total 341 examinations were performed, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy for impedance analysis was 70, 90, 48, 97 and 91% respectively, compared to 93, 97, 77, 99 and 97% for colour Duplex in identifying the "at-risk" grafts. Between 6 weeks and 12 months the mean PMV was seen to drop by 29% and the mean impedance score by 19%. The most sensitive mode of non-invasive graft surveillance is colour Duplex providing the assessment involves both a measurement of the velocity ratio and the absolute velocity. However, impedance analysis is a better screening test than ABPI and PMV. © 1994 W. B. Saunders Company Ltd.
引用
收藏
页码:315 / 319
页数:5
相关论文
共 22 条
  • [1] Brewster, LA Salle, Robison, Strayhorn, Darling, Factors affecting the patency of femoro-popliteal bypass grafts, Surg Gynecol Obstet, 157, pp. 437-442, (1983)
  • [2] Bandyk, Kaenbik, Stewart, Towne, Durability of the in situ saphenous vein arterial bypass
  • [3] a comparison of primary and secondary patency rates, J Vasc Surg, 5, pp. 256-268, (1987)
  • [4] Grigg, Nicolaides, Wolfe, Detection and grading of femorodistal vein grafts stenosis. Duplex velocity measurements compared with angiography, J Vasc Surg, 8, pp. 661-666, (1988)
  • [5] Moody, Gould, Harris, Vein graft surveillance improves patency in femoro-popliteal bypass surgery, Eur J Vasc Surg, 4, pp. 117-121, (1990)
  • [6] Green, Ouriel, Ricoota, Deweese, Revision of failed infra-inguinal bypass graft: principles of management, Surgery, 100, pp. 646-653, (1986)
  • [7] Greenspan, Pillari, Schulman, Et al., Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty of stenotic deep vein arterial bypass grafts, Arch Surg, 120, pp. 492-495, (1985)
  • [8] Cohen, Mannick, Couch, Et al., Recognition and management of impending vein graft failure, Arch Surg, 121, (1986)
  • [9] Whittemore, Donaldson, Polak, Mannick, Limitations of balloon angioplasty for vein graft stenosis, J Vasc Surg, 14, pp. 340-450, (1991)
  • [10] Wolfe, Taylor, Cheshire, Graft surveillance-a biased overview, The Maintenance of Arterial Reconstruction, pp. 119-128, (1991)