Heparin-bonded ePTFE (Propaten): is it as good as autologous vein for tibial bypass?
Neville et al. 20141
Division of Vascular Surgery, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA
Primary patency of GORE® PROPATEN® Vascular Graft
Patient characteristics*
Characteristic | N | % |
---|---|---|
Rutherford classification | ||
3 | 5 | 8% |
4 | 17 | 27% |
5 | 30 | 48% |
6 | 10 | 16% |
Hypertension | 45 | 73% |
Diabetes | 29 | 47% |
ESRD | 8 | 13% |
Prior bypass | 27 | 44% |
Distal anastomosis | ||
Anterior tibial | 15 | 24% |
Posterior tibial | 22 | 35% |
Peroneal | 21 | 34% |
Dorsalis pedis | 4 | 6% |
Study details
- Retrospective, non-randomized, single-center study
- Comparing GORE® PROPATEN® Vascular Graft to great saphenous vein
- Distal vein patch was used at all distal anastomoses
- There was no statistically significant difference in primary patency or limb salvage between GORE® PROPATEN® Vascular Graft and single-segment great saphenous vein
This experience with heparin-bonded ePTFE grafts for solely tibial artery bypass yielded patency and limb salvage rates that are comparable to intact great saphenous vein. — R. Neville
We believe that a quality saphenous vein remains the ideal conduit for tibial bypass, although HePTFE should be considered when intact ipsilateral or contralateral vein is not available. In our practice, HePTFE has emerged as the choice over arm vein, especially in the ESRD patient who needs upper extremity vein for dialysis access. We would also choose HePTFE over composite short saphenous vein given the increased dissection required and length of conduit. — R. Neville
*GORE® PROPATEN® Vascular Graft group
1. Neville RF, Babrowicz J, Amdur R, Sidawy A. Heparin-bonded ePTFE (Propaten): is it as good as autologous vein for tibial bypass? Italian Journal of Vascular & Endovascular Surgery 2014;21(1)49-56.