Should Vein Be Saved for Future Operations? A 15-Year Review of Infrainguinal Bypasses and the Subsequent Need for Autogenous Vein

Arm vein conduit vs prosthetic graft in infrainguinal revascularization for critical leg ischemia

“…This approach can be defended by the observation that the need for contralateral revascularizations is reported to be only between 20% and 23%. 5,22,23 The rate of subsequent CABG after lower limb revascularization is even lower, between 2% and 3% in 5 years, 6,23 as a large number of patients with CLI already have had coronary revascularization before the lower limb bypass. Improvement in medical management and huge increase in number of percutaneous coronary interventions is another obvious reason that CABG is relatively rarely needed in patients with CLI.…”

Comparison of long-term results of above-the-knee femoro-popliteal bypass with autogenous vein and polytetrafluoroethylene grafts

“…Moreover, the argument that PTFE grafts should be used in ATKFPB in order to preserve the great saphenous vein for future coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has become less convincing due to the availability of improved conduits for CABG and the increasing incidence of percutaneous coronary artery intervention [ 23 , 24 ].…”

Long‐term follow‐up of last autogenous option arm vein bypass

“…Many of the larger series utilized arm vein as ‘first alternative’ to ipsilateral GSV in an effort to conserve the contralateral GSV for future revascularization of the contralateral limb or for coronary bypass surgery should it be required . The policy of conserving the contralateral GSV has been demonstrated unnecessary, as only 20–30% of patients subsequently require it for revascularization . The practice in our unit has been to use the best available conduit for the symptomatic limb and to reserve arm vein as a ‘last autogenous option’ for infrainguinal bypass surgery.…”