Skip to content

Comparison of Two Lower Limb Bypass Types : Prosthesis Versus Autologous Vein

Randomised Study Comparing Prosthesis and Autologous Vein for Revascularisation With Above Knee Femoropopliteal Bypass.

Status
Completed
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT00221715
Acronym
REVA
Enrollment
100
Registered
2005-09-22
Start date
2002-07-01
Completion date
2011-05-01
Last updated
2026-06-10

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Arteritis, Diabetes

Keywords

arteritis, lower limb ischemia, femoropopliteal artery bypass, blood vessel prothesis implantation, saphenous vein, vascular permeability, doppler ultrasonography, randomized clinical trials, efficacy study

Brief summary

When medical treatments fail, critical ischemia of the lower limb often leads to surgery, i.e. above knee femoro popliteal bypass. This bypass can be performed either with DACRON or PTFE prosthesis or with the autologous saphenous vein. Both technics are used but they have not been compared regarding bypass permeability and limb salvage. Thus, this study will compare the permeability rate of above knee femoro popliteal surgery whether performed with autologous vein versus prosthesis

Detailed description

When medical treatments fail, critical ischemia of the lower limb often leads to surgery, i.e. above knee femoro popliteal bypass. This bypass can be performed with either DACRON or PTFE prosthesis or with the autologous saphenous vein. The principle disadvantages of prosthesis are their prejudged worse permeability and the risk of infection. Too few reliable randomised, multicentric studies in this indication comparing vein bypasses versus prosthesis bypasses have been conducted to firmly confirm the first argument. Thus, the purpose of this multicentric, randomised, national study is to compare, 5 years after surgery, the permeability rate of above knee femoropopliteal bypass with vein versus prosthesis. Primary and secondary permeability, permeability predictive factors, and leg salvage rate will also be assessed. One hundred enrolled patients with II to IV level leg arteritis will randomly be assigned to one of the surgery groups : vein or prosthesis (50 each). The recruiting period will last 3 years and a half, and the follow up 5 years for each patient. The main primary outcome, bypass permeability, will be assessed through Doppler ultrasonography during five years. Secondary endpoints, mortality and morbidity, will be evaluated during the clinical follow up. Permeability predictive factors, primary and secondary permeability, leg salvage will also be recorded. If the permeability rates are equivalent between prosthesis and vein, the use of prosthesis will be preferred as this surgery is easier and faster, and as it is important that the vein remains available for distal revascularisation (where it is more efficient) and for revascularisation of coronary arteries

Interventions

DEVICEfemoropopliteal artery bypass

Bypass by autologous saphenous vein

Sponsors

University Hospital, Bordeaux
Lead SponsorOTHER
Ministry of Health, France
CollaboratorOTHER_GOV

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE (Subject)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* lower limbs arteritis : II to IV arteritis level, above knee femoro popliteal bypass indication * signed informed consent

Exclusion criteria

* no contra indication to the use of prosthesis * Available saphenous vein * no major trophic trouble

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
Bypass permeability 5 years after surgery, assessed trough Doppler ultrasonography5 years

Secondary

MeasureTime frame
Mortality5 years
Morbidity5 years
permeability predictive factors (smoking habits, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, bypass diameter)5 years
Primary and secondary permeability5 years
leg salvage5 years

Countries

France

Contacts

PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATORDominique Midy, Professor

University Hospital, Bordeaux

STUDY_CHAIRGeneviève Chêne, Professor

University Hospital, Bordeaux

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Jun 11, 2026