4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

The Scandinavian Propaten® Trial-1-Year Patency of PTFE Vascular Prostheses with Heparin-Bonded Luminal Surfaces Compared to Ordinary Pure PTFE Vascular Prostheses - A Randomised Clinical Controlled Multi-centre Trial

期刊

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2011.01.021

关键词

Peripheral arterial disease; Bypass; Grafts; PFTE; Patency; Femoropopliteal

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To compare 1-year potencies' of heparin-bonded PTFE [(Hb-PTFE) (Propatene (R))] grafts with those of ordinary polytetraflouroethylene (PTFE) grafts in a blinded, randomised, clinically controlled, multi-centre study. Materials and methods: Eleven Scandinavian centres enrolled 569 patients with chronic functional or critical lower limb ischaemia who were scheduled to undergo femoro femoral bypass or femoro-poplitaeal bypass. The patients were randomised 1:1 stratified by centre. Patency was assessed by duplex ultrasound scanning. A total of 546 patients (96%) completed the study with adequate follow-up. Results: Perioperative bleeding was, on average, 370 ml with PTFE grafts and 399 ml with Heparin-bonded PTFE grafts (p = 0.32). Overall, primary patency after 1 year was 86.4% for Hb-PTFE grafts and 79.9% for PTFE grafts (OR = 0.627, 95% CI: 0.398; 0.989, p = 0.043). Secondary patency was 88% in Hb-PTFE grafts and 81% in PTFE grafts (OR = 0.569 (0.353; 0.917, p = 0.020)). Subgroup analyses revealed that significant reduction in risk (50%) was observed when Hb-PTFE was used for femoro-poplitaeal bypass (OR = 0.515 (0.281; 0.944, p = 0.030)), and a significant reduction in risk (50%) was observed with Hb-PTFE in cases with critical ischaemia (OR = 0.490 (0.249; 0.962, p = 0.036)). Conclusion: The Hb-PTFE graft significantly reduced the overall risk of primary graft failure by 37%. Risk reduction was 50% in femoro poplitaeal bypass cases and in cases with critical ischaemia. (C) 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of European Society for Vascular Surgery.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据