The Results of In Situ Prosthetic Graft Replacement for Infected Aortic Disease

Use of arterial transposition for vascular reconstruction within contaminated or infected abdominal fields

Intra-abdominal arterial reconstructions in the setting of reoperative, contaminated, or frankly infected fields can be a challenging undertaking for even the most experienced vascular surgeons. Open surgical arterial transpositions have been less commonly performed than other methods of reconstruction in the current era of vascular surgery despite many historical reports of successful outcomes. Autologous artery transpositions represent a viable option in the case of an infected or a contaminated operative field. We have described the cases of three patients treated at our institution who had required intra-abdominal revascularization in a contaminated or frankly infected surgical field. All three patients were successfully treated using open native visceral artery transposition procedures. These cases presented multiple challenges secondary to the ongoing infections, infected operative field, and, sometimes, a history of multiple vascular bypasses involving the aorta and visceral arteries. In such circumstances, we have demonstrated the effectiveness of native visceral arterial transposition as a feasible technique.

Prognostic factors after open and endovascular repair for infected native aneurysms of the abdominal aorta and common iliac artery

OBJECTIVE

Infected native aneurysms (INAs) of the abdominal aorta and iliac arteries are uncommon, but potentially fatal. Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has recently been introduced as a durable treatment option, with outcomes comparable to those yielded by conventional open repair. However, owing to the rarity of the disease, the strengths and limitations of each treatment remain uncertain. The present study aimed to separately assess post-open repair and post-EVAR outcomes and to clarify factors affecting the short-term and late prognosis after each treatment.

METHODS

Using a nationwide clinical registry, we investigated 600 patients treated with open repair and 226 patients treated with EVAR for INAs of the abdominal aorta and/or common iliac artery. The relationships between preoperative or operative factors and postoperative outcomes, including 90-day and 3-year mortality and persistent or recurrent aneurysm-related infection, were examined.

RESULTS

Prosthetic grafts were used in >90% of patients treated with open repair, and in situ and extra-anatomic arterial reconstruction was performed in 539 and 57 patients, respectively. Preoperative anemia and imaging findings suggestive of aneurysm-enteric fistula were independently associated with poor outcomes in terms of both 3-year mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-2.62; P = .046, and HR, 2.24; 95% CI, 1.12-4.46; P = .022, respectively) and persistent or recurrent infection (odds ratio [OR], 2.16; 95% CI, 1.04-4.49; P = .039, and OR, 4.96; 95% CI, 1.81-13.55; P = .002, respectively) after open repair, whereas omental wrapping or packing and antibiotic impregnation of the prosthetic graft for in situ reconstruction contributed to improved 3-year survival (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.39-0.92; P = .019, and HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.32-0.88; P = .014, respectively). Among patients treated with EVAR, abscess formation adjacent to the aneurysm was significantly associated with the occurrence of persistent or recurrent infection (OR, 2.24; 95% CI, 1.06-4.72; P = .034), whereas an elevated preoperative white blood cell count was predictive of 3-year mortality (HR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.00-3.13; P = .048).

CONCLUSIONS

Profiles of prognostic factors differed between open repair and EVAR in the treatment of INAs of the abdominal aorta and common iliac artery. Open repair may be more suitable than EVAR for patients with concurrent abscess formation.

Editor's Choice -- European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) 2024 Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Management of Abdominal Aorto-Iliac Artery Aneurysms

OBJECTIVE

The European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) has developed clinical practice guidelines for the care of patients with aneurysms of the abdominal aorta and iliac arteries in succession to the 2011 and 2019 versions, with the aim of assisting physicians and patients in selecting the best management strategy.

METHODS

The guideline is based on scientific evidence completed with expert opinion on the matter. By summarising and evaluating the best available evidence, recommendations for the evaluation and treatment of patients have been formulated. The recommendations are graded according to a modified European Society of Cardiology grading system, where the strength (class) of each recommendation is graded from I to III and the letters A to C mark the level of evidence.

RESULTS

A total of 160 recommendations have been issued on the following topics: Service standards, including surgical volume and training; Epidemiology, diagnosis, and screening; Management of patients with small abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), including surveillance, cardiovascular risk reduction, and indication for repair; Elective AAA repair, including operative risk assessment, open and endovascular repair, and early complications; Ruptured and symptomatic AAA, including peri-operative management, such as permissive hypotension and use of aortic occlusion balloon, open and endovascular repair, and early complications, such as abdominal compartment syndrome and colonic ischaemia; Long term outcome and follow up after AAA repair, including graft infection, endoleaks and follow up routines; Management of complex AAA, including open and endovascular repair; Management of iliac artery aneurysm, including indication for repair and open and endovascular repair; and Miscellaneous aortic problems, including mycotic, inflammatory, and saccular aortic aneurysm. In addition, Shared decision making is being addressed, with supporting information for patients, and Unresolved issues are discussed.

CONCLUSION

The ESVS Clinical Practice Guidelines provide the most comprehensive, up to date, and unbiased advice to clinicians and patients on the management of abdominal aorto-iliac artery aneurysms.

Brucella-infected abdominal aortic aneurysm: management strategies for an uncommon aneurysm

Objective

The occurrence of Brucella-induced abdominal aortic aneurysms is an exceedingly rare phenomenon, yet it stands as one of the most severe complications within this context. The combined utilization of serological testing and imaging diagnostics has been validated as an effective approach for the identification of Brucella-induced abdominal aortic aneurysms. Presently, the predominant therapeutic strategies encompass antibiotic treatment and surgical intervention. Nonetheless, ongoing controversies persist concerning the establishment of diagnostic criteria, the optimal timing and selection of antibiotic regimens, and the nuanced decision between open surgical procedures and endovascular interventions. Through a meticulous analysis of cases originating from our institution as well as a comprehensive review of previously documented instances, we aim to engage in a detailed discourse on the salient diagnostic and therapeutic facets surrounding Brucella-induced abdominal aortic aneurysms.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective summary of three cases involving Brucella-induced abdominal aortic aneurysms treated within our institution. Furthermore, we performed a comprehensive PubMed search, without imposing restrictions on language or publication year, to identify pertinent literature pertaining to Brucella-induced abdominal aortic aneurysms. The selection criteria primarily focused on case reports delineating occurrences of abdominal aortic aneurysms attributed to Brucella infection.

Results

We present three distinct cases of Brucella-induced abdominal aortic aneurysms managed at our institution, providing comprehensive insights into the employed diagnostic and therapeutic approaches. Additionally, over the past five decades, a total of 24 cases in 23 publications of Brucella-induced abdominal aortic aneurysms have been reported on PubMed. The earliest report dates back to 1976.

Conclusion

Our analysis suggests that Brucella-induced abdominal aortic aneurysm is characterized by a remarkably low incidence but is associated with a substantial risk of life-threatening complications. The integration of serological and imaging assessments assumes pivotal importance in facilitating prompt diagnosis of this condition. The prompt initiation of targeted antibiotic therapy is recommended, and the selection of appropriate surgical strategies should be guided by considerations including aneurysm dimensions and morphological attributes. The timely identification and intervention carry utmost significance in retarding disease advancement and ameliorating unfavorable clinical outcomes.

A Systematic Review of In-situ Aortic Reconstructions for Abdominal Aortic Graft and Endograft Infections: Outcomes of Currently Available Options for Surgical Replacement

BACKGROUND

This review synthetizes recent literature about in-situ aortic reconstructions for abdominal aortic graft or endograft infections (AGEIs), aiming to report outcomes individually related to currently available vascular substitutes (VSs).

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of all published literature from January 2005 to December 2022. We included articles reporting on open surgical treatment of abdominal AGEIs, with removal of the infected graft and in-situ reconstruction with biological or prosthetic material. Articles not distinguishing between abdominal and thoracic aortic-related outcomes were excluded, as well as studies reporting on cumulative in-situ and extra-anatomic reconstruction results.

RESULTS

Of 500 records identified through database searching (Pubmed: 226; Embase: 274), 8 of them were included in the present review. Overall, 30-days mortality rate was 8.7% (25/285), while the most frequent early complications were respiratory adverse events (46/346, 13.3%) and renal function deterioration (26/85, 30%). In 250/350 cases (71.4%), a biological VS was utilized. In 4 articles, the outcomes of different types of VSs were presented jointly. Patients analyzed in the remaining 4 reports were sorted in a "biological" and a "prosthetic" group (BG and PG). The cumulative mortality rate of the BG and PG were 15.6% (33/212) and 27% (9/33), respectively, while graft reinfection was 6.3% (15/236) in the BG, and 9% (3/33) in the PG. The cumulative mortality rate reported in articles focused on autologous veins was 14.8% (30/202), while their 30-days reinfection rate was 5.7% (13/226).

CONCLUSIONS

Since abdominal AGEIs are uncommon conditions, literature focused on direct comparison between different types of VSs is scarce, particularly when related to materials other than autologous veins. Although we found a lower overall mortality rate in patients treated with biological material or with autologous veins only, in recent reports prosthesis provide promising results in terms of mortality and reinfection rate. However, none of the available studies distinguish and compares different types of prosthetic material. Large multicenter studies are advisable, especially focused on different types of VSs and their comparison.

Clinical outcomes of in situ graft reconstruction in treating infected abdominal aortic stent grafts following endovascular aortic aneurysm repair: a single-center experience

Purpose

This study aimed to review our experience with the explantation of infected endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) grafts.

Methods

This single-center, retrospective, observational study analyzed the data of 12 consecutive patients who underwent infected aortic stent graft explantation following EVAR between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2019, of which 11 underwent in situ graft reconstruction following graft removal. The presentation symptoms, infection route, original pathology of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA), graft materials, and clinical outcomes were analyzed.

Results

Six patients underwent total explantation, whereas 5 underwent removal of only the fabric portions. For in situ reconstructions, prosthetic grafts and banked allografts were used in 8 and 3 patients, respectively. Four mechanisms of graft infection were noted in 11 patients: 4 had bacteremia from systemic infections, 3 had persistent infections following EVAR of primary infected AAA, 3 had ascending infections from adjacent abscesses, and 1 had an aneurysm sac erosion resulting in an aortoenteric fistula. No infection-related postoperative complications or reinfections occurred during the mean 65.27-month (standard deviation, ±52.51) follow-up period. One patient died postoperatively because of the rupture of the proximal aortic wall pseudoaneurysm that had occurred during forceful bare stent removal.

Conclusion

Regardless of graft material, in situ graft reconstruction is safe for interposition in treating an infected aortic stent graft following EVAR. In our experience, the residual bare stent is no longer a risk factor for reinfection. Therefore, it is important not to injure the proximal aortic wall when removing the bare stent by force.

Primary aortoduodenal fistula in a patient with multiple duodenal diverticula

A 67-year-old man with massive hematemesis was transferred to the emergency unit of our hospital. The patient was diagnosed with primary aortoduodenal fistula (PADF) based on the CT findings. Upon emergent exploration, multiple duodenal diverticula were found and in situ abdominal aortic aneurysm(AAA) repair using polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) graft was performed. The third and fourth parts of the duodenum with multiple duodenal diverticula and the origin of jejunum were excised, and end-to-side duodenojejunostomy was performed. The patient was discharged on the 38th postoperative day with another 6-month oral antibiotic treatment. The duodenal diverticula may be the cause for PADF.

Nationwide study of surgery for primary infected abdominal aortic and common iliac artery aneurysms

BACKGROUND

Primary infected aneurysms of the abdominal aorta and iliac arteries are potentially life-threatening. However, because of the rarity of the disease, its pathogenesis and optimal treatment strategy remain poorly defined.

METHODS

A nationwide retrospective cohort study investigated patients who underwent surgical treatment for a primary infected abdominal aortic and/or common iliac artery (CIA) aneurysm between 2011 and 2017 using a Japanese clinical registry. The study evaluated the relationships between preoperative factors and postoperative outcomes including 90-day and 3-year mortality, and persistent or recurrent aneurysm-related infection. Propensity score matching was used to compare survival between patients who underwent in situ prosthetic grafting and those who had endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR).

RESULTS

Some 862 patients were included in the analysis. Preceding infection was identified in 30.2 per cent of the patients. The median duration of postoperative follow-up was 639 days. Cumulative overall survival rates at 30 days, 90 days, 1 year, 3 years and 5 years were 94.0, 89.7, 82.6, 74.9 and 68.5 per cent respectively. Age, preoperative shock and hypoalbuminaemia were independently associated with short-term and late mortality. Compared with open repair, EVAR was more closely associated with persistent or recurrent aneurysm-related infection (odds ratio 2.76, 95 per cent c.i. 1.67 to 4.58; P < 0.001). Propensity score-matched analyses demonstrated no significant differences between EVAR and in situ graft replacement in terms of 3-year all-cause and aorta-related mortality rates (P = 0.093 and P =0.472 respectively).

CONCLUSION

In patients undergoing surgical intervention for primary infected abdominal aortic and CIA aneursyms, postoperative survival rates were encouraging. Eradication of infection following EVAR appeared less likely than with open repair, but survival rates were similar in matched patients between EVAR and in situ graft replacement.

Surgical and medical interventions for abdominal aortic graft infections

BACKGROUND

Abdominal aortic graft infections are a major complication following abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery, with high morbidity and mortality rates. They can be treated surgically or conservatively using medical management. The two most common surgical techniques are in situ replacement of the graft and extra-anatomical bypass. Medical management most commonly consists of a course of long-term antibiotics. There is currently no consensus on which intervention (extra-anatomical bypass, in situ replacement, or medical) is the most effective in managing abdominal aortic graft infections. Whilst in emergency or complex situations such as graft rupture surgical management is the only option, in non-emergency situations it is often personal preference that influences the clinician's decision-making.

OBJECTIVES

To assess and compare the effects of surgical and medical interventions for abdominal aortic graft infections.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL databases and WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 2 December 2019. We also reviewed the bibliographies of the studies identified by the search and contacted specialists in the field and study authors to request information on any possible unpublished data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We aimed to include all randomised controlled trials that used surgical or medical interventions to treat abdominal aortic graft infections. The definitions of abdominal aortic graft infections were accepted as presented in the individual studies, and included secondary infection due to aortoenteric fistula. We excluded studies presenting data on prosthetic graft infections in general, unless data specific to abdominal aortic graft infections could be isolated.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed all studies identified by the search. We planned to independently assess risk of bias of the included trials and to evaluate the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Our main outcomes were overall mortality, amputation, graft re-infection, overall graft-related complications, graft-related mortality, acute limb ischaemia, and re-intervention.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified no randomised controlled trials to conduct meta-analysis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently insufficient evidence to draw conclusions to support any treatment over the other. Multicentre clinical trials are required to compare different treatments for the condition.