Journal of Community Hospital Internal Medicine Perspectives (Nov 2019)

Great saphenous vein stump: a risk factor for superficial/deep venous thrombosis and an indication for prophylactic anticoagulation? - a retrospective analysis

  • Yasir Khan,
  • Muhammad Arslan Cheema,
  • Hafez Mohammad Ammar Abdullah,
  • Yasar Sattar,
  • Shujaul Haq,
  • Asoka Balaratna,
  • Khadija Cheema,
  • Waqas Ullah

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1080/20009666.2019.1655626
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 9, no. 6
pp. 473 – 476

Abstract

Read online

Background: Great saphenous vein (GSV) grafts are used for coronary artery bypass surgeries, but the remaining stump of the GSV may be the nidus for superficial and deep vein thrombosis. This study aims to determine the risk of thrombosis in the GSV stump in patients who developed lower extremity swelling following coronary artery bypass graft (CABG). Methods: We conducted a single-center retrospective analysis at Abington Jefferson Hospital of 100 patients who underwent CABG with GSV. Patients were monitored via follow-up for seven days for the development of saphenous vein thrombosis without any prophylactic anticoagulation for venous thrombosis. Risk factors including age, diabetes, hypertension, smoking, familial thrombophilia’s, family history of thrombosis, malignancy, and confounding factor-like early mobilization that may potentially alter the results were recorded. Results: The mean age of included patients was 70 years, and 65% of participants were men, 35% were women. Fourteen percent of the patients developed pain, swelling and edema in a leg where the graft was taken. We included patients aged >50 years with coronary artery disease who underwent CABG with SVG and developed lower extremity symptoms concerning for thrombosis. These patients underwent duplex ultrasound for possible GSV stump thrombosis. Any patients with coronary artery disease but no CABG or no lower extremity edema were excluded from the study. We found no saphenous vein thrombosis in the stump of the GSV in patients with clinical symptoms of thrombosis in their lower extremities based on duplex imaging. Conclusion: Based on our findings, the postoperative risk of developing thrombosis at the GSV stump and its extension to the deep veins is low and does not warrant prophylactic anticoagulation for venous thromboembolism. However, we recommend that further prospective studies with larger samples for an extended duration are warranted for better assessment of the risk of venous thrombosis in the GSV stump with minimal confounding factors.

Keywords