Determinants of anastomosis long term patency


The hope of any surgeon performing vascular anastomosis is that the vascular reconstruction he is performing will last forever and patients will be once and for all set free from ischemic symptoms. Unfortunately, this rarely occurs mostly because the surgical procedure doesn’t treat the cause of vessel occlusion, such as the atherosclerosis and the atherosclerotic process will probably continue to progress, the anastomosis not being spared. Based on clinical experience, cardiac surgeons know, for instance, that to achieve 100% graft patency at 10 years they should use arterial grafts as conduits on a 3 mm coronary artery with proximal sub-occlusion, without distal disease, with large runoff in patients taking antiplatelet drugs and statins and no hypercoagulability (Fig. 1). On the other hand, 100% of graft occlusion at 10 days occurs when a large vein is anastomosed on 1 mm coronary artery with moderate proximal stenosis, with distal disease and poor runoff, in a diabetic patient taking no drugs. However, in this chapter, we systematically review the elements and parameters clearly affecting the outcome of any vascular reconstruction in order to give a general view of what cardiodiovascular surgeons should take into account in order to give a realistic expectation of anastomosis patency.


Wall Shear Stress Vein Graft Patency Rate Intimal Hyperplasia Suture Technique 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Hasson JE, Megerman J, Abbot WM (1985) Increased compliance near vascular anastomoses. J Vasc Surg 2(3):419–423PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dobrin PB (1980) Vascular Mechanics. In: Handbook of physiology the cardiovascular system, Vol. 2. Bethesda, Maryland, Am Phys Soc, pp 65–102Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baumgartner N, Dobrin PB et al. (1996) Influence of suture technique and suture material selection on the mechanics of end-to-end and end-to-side anastomoses. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 111(5):1063–1072PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hasson JE, Megerman J, Abbott WM (1986) Suture technique and para-anastomotic compliance. J Vasc Surg 3:591–598PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schajer GS, Green SI, Davis AP, Hsiang NH (1996) Influence of elastic nonlinearity of arterial anastomotic compliance. J Biomech Eng 118:445–451PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tozzi P, Hayoz D, Mueller XM, M’Baku C, Mallabiabarrena I, von Segesser LK (2000) Decreased compliance on arterial anastomoses. Swiss Surg 6(2):77–79PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tozzi P, Hayoz D, Mueller XM, M’Baku C, Mallabiabarrena I, von Segesser LK (2000) Anastomotic longitudinal stress due to modification of arterial longitudinal properties after anastomosis. Swiss Surg 6(2):74–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tozzi P, Hayoz D, Ruchat P, Corno A, Oedman C, Botta U, von Segesser LK (2001) Animal model to compare the effects of suture technique on cross-sectional compliance on end-to-side anastomoses. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 19(4):477–481PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Klein SR, Goldberg L, Miranda RM (1982) Effect of suture technique on arterial anastomotic compliance. Arch Surg 117(1):45–47PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dobrin PB (1994) Mechanical factors associated with the development of intimal hyperplasia with respect to vascular grafts. In: Dobrin PB (ed) Intimal hyperplasia. RG Landes, Austin, pp 85–109Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Szilagyi DE, Whitcomb J, Schenker W (1960) The laws of fluid flow and arterial grafting. Surgery 47:55–67Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ballyk PD, Walsh C, Butany J, Ojha M (1998) Compliance mismatch may promote graft-artery intimal hyperplasia by altering suture-line stresses. J Biomech 31(3):229–237PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hasson JE, Megerman J, Abbot WM (1985) Increased compliance near vascular anastomoses. J Vasc Surg 2(3):419–423PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ljungman C, Ulus AT, Almgren B, Bergrstom R (2000) A multivariate analysis of factors affecting patency of femoropopliteal and femorodistal bypass grafting. Vasa 29(3):215–220PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chow MST, Sim E, Orszulak TA et al. (1994) Patency of internal thoracic artery grafts: comparison of right versus left and importance of vessel grafted. Circulation 90:129–132Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Harris Peter, How T (1999) Haemodynamics of cuffed arterial anastomoses. Crit Ischae 9(1):20–26Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zhang L, Moskovitz M, Piscatelli S, Longaker MT, Siebert JW (1995) Hemodynamic study of different angled end-to-side anastomoses. Microsurg 16(2): 114–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Leva C, Engstrom KG (2003) Flow resistance over technical anastomoses in relation to the angle of distal end-to-side connections. Scand Cardiovasc J 37(3):165–171PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fei DY, Thomas JD, Rittgers SE (1994) The effect of angle and flow rate upon hemodynamics in distal vascular graft anastomoses: a numerical model study. J Biomech Eng 116(3):331–336PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Walsh MT, Kavanagh EG, O’Brien T, Grace PA, McGloughlin T (2003) On the existence of an optimum end-to-side junctional geometry in peripheral bypass surgery — a computer generated study. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 26(6): 649–656PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Miller JH, Foreman RK, Ferguson L, Faris I (1984) Interposition vein cuff for anastomosis of prosthesis to small artery. Aust NZ J Surg 54:283–285Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Brumby SA, Petrucco MF, Walsh JA, Bond MJ (1992) A retrospective analysis of infra-inguinal arterial reconstruction: three-year patency rates. Aust NZ J Surg 62:256–260Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stonebridge PA, Prescott RJ, Ruckley CV (1997) Randomized trial comparing infrainguinal polytetrafluoroethylene bypass grafting with and without vein interposition cuff at the distal anastomosis. J Vasc Surg 26:543–550PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Raptis S, Miller JH (1995) Influence of a vein cuff on polytetrafluoroethylene grafts for primary femoropopliteal bypass. Br J Surg 82:487–491PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wijesinghe LD, Mahmood T, Scott DJ (1999) Axial flow fields in cuffed endto-side anastomoses: effect of angle and disease progression. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 18(3):240–244PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zacharias A, Habib RH, Schwann TA, Riordan CJ, Durham SJ, Shah A (2004) Improved survival with radial artery versus vein conduits in coronary bypass surgery with left internal thoracic artery to left anterior descending artery grafting. Circulation 109(12):1489–1496PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shimizu T, Ito S, Kikuchi Y, Misaka M, Hirayama T, Ishimaru S, Yamashina A (2004) Arterial conduit shear stress following bypass grafting for intermediate coronary artery stenosis: a comparative study with saphenous vein grafts. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 25(4):578–584PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Berguer R, Higgins RF, Reddy DJ (1980) Intimal hyperplasia. An experimental study. Arch Surg 115(3):332–335PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Meyerson SL, Skelly CL, Curi MA et al. (2001) The effects of extremely low shear stress on cellular proliferation and neointimal thickening in the failing bypass graft. J Vasc Surg 34:90–97PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Corno AF, Tozzi P, Genton CY, von Segesser LK (2003) Surgically induced unilateral pulmonary hypertension: time-related analysis of a new experimental model. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 23(4):513–517PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pevec WC, L’Italien GJ, Megerman J, Cambria RP, Abbott WM (1993) Abnormal wall strain at distal end-to-side anastomoses. Ann Vasc Surg 7(1):14–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Salacinski HJ, Goldner S, Giudiceandrea A, Hamilton G, Seifalian AM, Edwards A, Carson RG (2001) The mechanical behaviour of vascular grafts: a review. J Biomater Appl 15(3):241–278PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    King J, Weathington T, Creighton J, McDonald F, Gillespie M et al. (2001) Characterization of phenotipically distinct endothelial cells population from rat lungs. FASEB J 15:A492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Suma H (1999) Arterial grafts in coronary bypass surgery. Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 5(3):141–145PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Dewey M, Crumrine K, Herbert MA, Leonard A, Prince SL, Worley C, Edgerton JR, Magee MJ, Mack MJ (2004) First-year outcomes of beating heart coronary artery bypass grafting using proximal mechanical connectors. Ann Thorac Surg 77:1542–1549PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Terry CM, Callahan KS (1996) Protein kinase C regulates cytokine induced tissue factor transcription and procoagulant activity in human endothelial cells. J Lab Clin Med 127:81–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Abizaid A, Kornowski R, Mintz GS et al. (1998) The influence of diabetes mellitus on acute and late clinical outcomes following coronary stent implantation. J Am Coll Cardiol 32:584–589PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Elezi S, Kastrati A, Pache J et al. (1998) Diabetes mellitus and the clinical and angiographic outcome after coronary stent placement. J Am Coll Cardiol 32:1866–1873PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kornowski R, Hong MK, Tio FO et al. (1998) In-stent restenosis. Contributions of inflammatory responses and arterial injury to neointimal hyperplasia. J Am Coll Cardiol 31:224–230PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Steinkopff Verlag Darmstadt 2007

Personalised recommendations