Cryopreserved arterial allografts vs rifampin-soaked Dacron for the treatment of infected aortic and iliac grafts

Cryopreserved arterial allografts vs autologous vein for arterial reconstruction in infected fields

OBJECTIVE

Peripheral arterial infections are rare and difficult to treat when an in situ reconstruction is required. Autologous vein (AV) is the conduit of choice in many scenarios. However, cryopreserved arterial allografts (CAAs) are an alternative. We aimed to assess our experience with CAAs and AVs for reconstruction in primary and secondary peripheral arterial infections.

METHODS

Data from patients with peripheral arterial infections undergoing reconstruction with CAA or AV from January 2002 through August 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. Patients with aortic- or iliac-based infections were excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 42 patients (28 CAA, 14 AV) with a mean age of 65 and 69 years, respectively, were identified. Infections were secondary in 31 patients (74%) and primary in 11 (26%). Secondary infections included 10 femoral-femoral grafts, 10 femoropopliteal or femoral-distal grafts, five femoral patches, four carotid-subclavian grafts, one carotid-carotid graft, and one infected carotid patch. Primary infection locations included six femoral, three popliteal, and two subclavian arteries. In patients with lower extremity infections, associated groin infections were present in 19 (56%). Preoperative blood cultures were positive in 17 patients (41%). AVs included saphenous vein in eight and femoral vein in six. Intraoperative cultures were negative in nine patients (23%), polymicrobial in eight (21%), and monomicrobial in 22 (56%). Thirty-day mortality occurred in four patients (10%), two due to multisystem organ failure, one due to graft rupture causing acute blood loss and myocardial infarction, and one due to an unknown cause post-discharge. Median follow-up was 20 months and 46 months in the CAA and AV group, respectively. Graft-related reintervention was performed in six patients in the CAA group (21%) and one patient in the AV group (7%). Freedom from graft-related reintervention rates at 3 years were 82% and 92% in the CAA and AV group, respectively (P = .12). Survival rates at 1 and 3 years were 85% and 65% in the CAA group and 92% and 84% in the AV group (P = .13). Freedom from loss of primary patency was similar with 3-year rates of 77% and 83% in the CAA and AV group, respectively (P = .25). No patients in either group were diagnosed with reinfection.

CONCLUSIONS

CAAs are an alternative conduit for peripheral arterial reconstructions when AV is not available. Although there was a trend towards higher graft-related reintervention rates in the CAA group, patency is similar and reinfection is rare.

Cryopreserved arterial allografts vs rifampin-soaked Dacron for the treatment of infected aortic and iliac grafts

OBJECTIVE

Aortic and iliac graft infections remain complex clinical problems with high mortality and morbidity. Cryopreserved arterial allografts (CAAs) and rifampin-soaked Dacron (RSD) are options for in situ reconstruction. This study aimed to compare the safety and effectiveness of CAA vs RSD in this setting.

METHODS

Data from patients with aortic and iliac graft infections undergoing in situ reconstruction with either CAA or RSD from January 2002 through August 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. Our primary outcomes were freedom from graft-related reintervention and freedom from reinfection. Secondary outcomes included comparing trends in the use of CAA and RSD at our institution, overall survival, perioperative mortality, and major morbidity.

RESULTS

A total of 149 patients (80 RSD, 69 CAA) with a mean age of 68.9 and 69.1 years, respectively, were included. Endovascular stent grafts were infected in 60 patients (41 CAA group and 19 RSD group; P ≤ .01). Graft-enteric fistulas were more common in the RSD group (48.8% RSD vs 29.0% CAA; P ≤ .01). Management included complete resection of the infected graft (85.5% CAA vs 57.5% RSD; P ≤ .01) and aortic reconstructions were covered in omentum in 57 (87.7%) and 63 (84.0%) patients in the CAA and RSD group, respectively (P = .55). Thirty-day/in-hospital mortality was similar between the groups (7.5% RSD vs 7.2% CAA; P = 1.00). One early graft-related death occurred on postoperative day 4 due to CAA rupture and hemorrhagic shock. Median follow-up was 20.5 and 21.5 months in the CAA and RSD groups, respectively. Overall post-discharge survival at 5 years was similar, at 59.2% in the RSD group and 59.0% in the CAA group (P = .80). Freedom from graft-related reintervention at 1 and 5 years was 81.3% and 66.2% (CAA) vs 95.6% and 92.5% (RSD; P = .02). Indications for reintervention in the CAA group included stenosis (n = 5), pseudoaneurysm (n = 2), reinfection (n = 2), occlusion (n = 2), rupture (n = 1), and graft-limb kinking (n = 1). In the RSD group, indications included reinfection (n = 3), occlusion (n = 1), endoleak (n = 1), omental coverage (n = 1), and rupture (n = 1). Freedom from reinfection at 1 and 5 years was 98.3% and 94.9% (CAA) vs 92.5% and 87.2% (RSD; P = .11). Two (2.9%) and three patients (3.8%) in the CAA and RSD group, respectively, required graft explantation due to reinfection.

CONCLUSIONS

Aorto-iliac graft infections can be managed safely with either CAA or RSD in selected patients for in situ reconstruction. However, reintervention was more common with CAA use. Freedom from reinfection rates in the RSD group was lower, but this was not statistically significant. Conduit choice is associated with long-term surveillance needs and reinterventions.