This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Data Supplement Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Davies, A.H. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Davies, A.H. Related Collections Restenosis Other diagnostic testing CV surgery: other By-pass procedures

(Circulation. 2005;112:1985-1991.)
© 2005 American Heart Association, Inc.

Imaging

Is Duplex Surveillance of Value After Leg Vein Bypass Grafting?

Principal Results of the Vein Graft Surveillance Randomised Trial (VGST)

A.H. Davies, MA, DM, FRCS; A.J. Hawdon, PhD; M.R. Sydes, MSc; S.G. Thompson, DSc, on Behalf of the VGST Participants

From the Department of Vascular Surgery (A.H.D., A.J.H.), Imperial College London at Charing Cross Hospital, London, United Kingdom; MRC Clinical Trials Unit (M.R.S.), London, United Kingdom; and MRC Biostatistics Unit (S.G.T.), Institute of Public Health, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Correspondence to Mr Alun H. Davies, Department of Vascular Surgery, Imperial College London at Charing Cross Hospital, Fulham Palace Rd, London, W6 8RF, United Kingdom. E-mail a.h.davies{at}imperial.ac.uk

Received November 3, 2004; revision received June 1, 2005; accepted June 6, 2005.

Background— The purpose of this study was to assess the benefits of duplex compared with clinical vein graft surveillance in terms of amputation rates, quality of life, and healthcare costs in patients after femoropopliteal and femorocrural vein bypass grafts.

Methods and Results— This was a multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled trial. A total of 594 patients with a patent vein graft at 30 days after surgery were randomized to either a clinical or duplex follow-up program at 6 weeks, then 3, 6, 9, 12, and 18 months postoperatively. The clinical and duplex surveillance groups had similar amputation rates (7% for each group) and vascular mortality rates (3% versus 4%) over 18 months. More patients in the clinical group had vein graft stenosis at 18 months (19% versus 12%, P=0.04), but primary patency, primary assisted patency, and secondary patency rates, respectively, were similar in the clinical group (69%, 76%, and 80%) and the duplex group (67%, 76%, and 79%). There were no apparent differences in health-related quality of life, but the average health service costs incurred by the duplex surveillance program were greater by £495 (95% CI £183 to £807) per patient.

Conclusions— Intensive surveillance with duplex scanning did not show any additional benefit in terms of limb salvage rates for patients undergoing vein bypass graft operations, but it did incur additional costs.

Key Words: imaging • stenosis • amputation • grafting • occlusion

This article has been cited by other articles:

				D. F. Bandyk and J. P. Chauvapun Duplex Ultrasound Surveillance Can Be Worthwhile After Arterial Intervention Perspectives in Vascular Surgery and Endovascular Therapy, December 1, 2007; 19(4): 354 - 359. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. H. Davies Commentary on "Duplex Ultrasound Surveillance Can Be Worthwhile After Arterial Intervention" Perspectives in Vascular Surgery and Endovascular Therapy, December 1, 2007; 19(4): 360 - 361. [PDF]

				D. F. Bandyk Surveillance After Lower Extremity Arterial Bypass Perspectives in Vascular Surgery and Endovascular Therapy, December 1, 2007; 19(4): 376 - 383. [Abstract] [PDF]

				G. J. Landry, T. K. Liem, E. L. Mitchell, J. M. Edwards, and G. L. Moneta Factors Affecting Symptomatic vs Asymptomatic Vein Graft Stenoses in Lower Extremity Bypass Grafts Arch Surg, September 1, 2007; 142(9): 848 - 854. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. L. Mills Sr Commentary Perspectives in Vascular Surgery and Endovascular Therapy, June 1, 2006; 18(2): 194 - 196. [Abstract] [PDF]

				T. Lindsay and A. Dueck Vascular viewpoint Vascular Medicine, May 1, 2006; 11(2): 137 - 138. [Abstract] [PDF]