Redo aortic grafting after treatment of aortic graft infection

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by the search and contacted specialists in the field and study authors to request information on any possible unpublished data.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.

Recurrent Aortoenteric Fistula: Two Different Bridge Solutions

A “recurrent” aortoenteric fistula (AEF) is very rare and in literature anecdotic. Currently, graft excision and extra-anatomic bypass are considered the treatments of choice, but are associated with significant mortality and morbidity. Herein, we describe the case of a “recurrent” AEF treated before definitive extra-anatomic bypass, by two different, staged bridge solutions: allograft in situ replacement and endovascular grafting. At 1, 3 and 6-month follow-up, the patient was asymptomatic and normally active.

Medical treatment of prosthetic vascular graft infections: Review of the literature and proposals of a Working Group

More than 400000 vascular grafts are inserted annually in the USA. Graft insertion is complicated by infection in 0.5-4% of cases. Vascular graft infections (VGIs) are becoming one of the most frequent prosthesis-related infections and are associated with considerable mortality, ranging from 10 to 25% within 30 days following the diagnosis. Treatment of VGI is based on urgent surgical removal of the infected graft followed by prolonged antibiotherapy. Data regarding the best antibiotherapy to use are lacking since no well designed trial to study antimicrobial treatment of VGI exists. Moreover, since VGIs demonstrate very specific pathophysiology, guidelines on other material-related infections or infective endocarditis treatment cannot be entirely applied to VGI. A French multidisciplinary group gathering infectious diseases specialists, anaesthesiologists, intensivists, microbiologists, radiologists and vascular surgeons was created to review the literature dealing with VGI and to make some proposals regarding empirical and documented antibiotic therapy for these infections. This article reveals these proposals.

Allograft replacement for infrarenal aortic graft infection: early and late results in 179 patients

OBJECTIVES

We evaluated early and late results of allograft replacement to treat infrarenal aortic graft infection in a large number of patients and compared the results in patients who received fresh allografts versus patients who received cryopreserved allografts.

METHODS

From 1988 to 2002 we operated on 179 consecutive patients (mean age, 64.6 +/- 9.0 years; 88.8% men). One hundred twenty-five patients (69.8%) had primary graft infections, and 54 patients (30.2%) had secondary aortoenteric fistulas (AEFs). Fresh allografts were used in 111 patients (62.0%) until 1996, and cryopreserved allografts were used in 68 patients (38.0%) thereafter.

RESULTS

Early postoperative mortality was 20.1% (36 patients), including four (2.2%) allograft-related deaths from rupture of the allograft (recurrent AEF, n = 3), all in patients with fresh allografts. Thirty-two deaths were not allograft related. Significant risk factors for early mortality were septic shock (P <.001), presence of AEF (P =.04), emergency operation (P =.003), emergency allograft replacement (P =.0075), surgical complication (P =.003) or medical complication (P <.0001), and need for repeat operation (P =.04). There were five (2.8%) nonlethal allograft complications (rupture, n = 2; thromboses, which were successfully treated at repeat operation, n = 2; and amputation, n = 1), all in patients with fresh allografts. Four patients (2.2%) were lost to follow-up. Mean follow-up was 46.0 +/- 42.1 months (range, 1-148 months). Late mortality was 25.9% (37 patients). There were three (2.1%) allograft-related late deaths from rupture of the allograft, at 9, 10, and 27 months, respectively, all in patients with fresh allografts. Actuarial survival was 73.2% +/- 6.8% at 1 year, 55.0% +/- 8.8% at 5 years, and 49.4% +/- 9.6% at 7 years. Late nonlethal aortic events occurred in 10 patients (7.2%; occlusion, n = 4; dilatation < 4 cm, n = 5; aneurysm, n = 1), at a mean of 28.3 +/- 28.2 months, all but two in patients with fresh allografts. The only significant risk factor for late aortic events was use of an allograft obtained from the descending thoracic aorta (P =.03). Actuarial freedom from late aortic events was 96.6% +/- 3.4% at 1 year, 89.3% +/- 6.6% at 3 years, and 89.3% +/- 6.6% at 5 years. There were 63 late, mostly occlusive, iliofemoral events, which occurred at a mean of 34.9 +/- 33.7 months in 38 patients (26.6%), 28 of whom (73.7%) had received fresh allografts. The only significant risk factor for late iliofemoral events was use of fresh allografts versus cryopreserved allografts (P =.03). Actuarial freedom from late iliofemoral events was 84.6% +/- 7.0% at 1 year, 72.5% +/- 9.0% at 3 years, and 66.4% +/- 10.2% at 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Early and long-term results of allograft replacement are at least similar to those of other methods to manage infrarenal aortic graft infections. Rare specific complications include early or late allograft rupture and late aortic dilatation. The more frequent late iliofemoral complications may be easily managed through the groin. These complications are significantly reduced by using cryopreserved allografts rather than fresh allografts and by not using allografts obtained from the descending thoracic aorta.

Evolving Complexity of Open Aortofemoral Reconstruction Done for Occlusive Disease in the Endovascular Era

Available endovascular and less invasive surgical interventions have diminished the need for aortofemoral bypass (AFB) construction for chronic inflow occlusive disease but have potentially increased its complexity. We reviewed our results with AFB done in 107 consecutive patients between 1997 and June 2002 (83 men, 24 women, mean age 62 +/- 7 years) with chronic limb ischemia due to aortoiliofemoral occlusive disease. Perioperative factors and surgical outcomes (<30 days) were evaluated and compared between patients requiring complex (redo AFB, need for visceral aortic clamp for juxtarenal occlusion, adjunctive visceral revascularization, or simultaneous inflow/outflow bypass) and conventional reconstructions by contingency table analysis. AFB was done for limb threat in 65 patients (61%) and 44 patients (41%) had failed previous inflow procedures (22 endovascular, 43 open; 1.5/patient). Operative complexity (36 patients, 34%) was evidenced by the need for redo AFB in 8 patients, suprarenal (13) or supramesenteric/celiac (6) aortic clamp and pararenal endarterectomy in 19 cases, adjunctive renal (10) or mesenteric (2) revascularization, or simultaneous construction of AFB and femoropopliteal/tibial bypasses in 9 patients. Overall AFB operative mortality and major complication rates were 3.7% ( n = 4) and 34% ( n = 36), respectively. Mortality ( p = 0.32) and nonvisceral related complications ( p = 0.3) were not statistically more frequent after complex AFB (5.6%, 31%) than after conventional reconstructions (2.8%, 21%). However, renal, mesenteric, or spinal cord (visceral) ischemic complications or death (10.3%) were greater after complex reconstructions (19.4%) than after conventional AFB (5.6%) ( p = 0.03). Pre-existing renal insufficiency (Cr >/=1.5, n = 9) was not predictive of postoperative renal failure (>2x preop Cr, n = 7) in this series ( p = 0.4). Our recent experience with AFB suggests its increasing use as a tertiary modality after failed endovascular or less invasive open reconstructions. Despite the added operative complexity associated with manipulation of the visceral aorta and its branches and the need for extended infrainguinal revascularization, satisfactory clinical outcomes can be achieved.

Aortic prosthetic graft infections: radiologic manifestations and implications for management

Prosthetic graft infections are an uncommon complication of aortic bypass. These infections may have serious sequelae such as limb loss and can be lethal. They are hard to eradicate and, under certain circumstances, difficult to diagnose. Usually, computed tomography (CT) is the most efficacious imaging method for diagnosis of graft infections due to its quick availability. The sensitivity of magnetic resonance imaging in detection of perigraft infection has not been thoroughly investigated but is probably similar to that of CT. After the early postoperative period, persistent or expanding perigraft soft tissue, fluid, and gas are the CT findings of graft infection. Aortoenteric fistula should be considered a subset of aortic graft infection; however, perigraft air is more likely to be seen with an aortoenteric fistula. Other conditions associated with graft infection include pseudoaneurysm, hydronephrosis, and osteomyelitis. Adjunctive studies such as sinography, ultrasonography, gallium scanning, and labeled white blood cell scanning can be quite useful in diagnosis, determination of the extent of disease, and selection of the treatment modality. White blood cell scanning is an important complementary test to CT in ambiguous cases, such as in the early postoperative period, and may be more sensitive in detection of early graft infection.

Management of Patients with Prosthetic Vascular Graft Infection

Management of patients with infected prosthetic vascular grafts is one of the most difficult challenges faced by the vascular surgeon. Patients often present with nonspecific symptoms, but delay in treatment can lead to life-threatening sepsis and/or hemorrhage. Fortunately, prosthetic vascular graft infection is uncommon, with the incidence varying between 1 and 6 per cent, depending on the location of the graft. Initially, the potentially infected vascular graft should be imaged using either CT or magnetic resonance imaging, with radionuclide studies being reserved for those instances in which imaging studies do not confirm or exclude the diagnosis of infection. Current treatments for prosthetic vascular graft infection include attempted graft preservation, graft removal with in situ graft replacement (using autogenous or new prosthetic grafts), and graft removal with extra-anatomic bypass. Morbidity and mortality associated with treatment, likelihood of long-term limb salvage, and likelihood of persistent or recurrent infection vary among these types of treatment. Therefore, in an individual patient with a prosthetic vascular graft infection, many things must be considered to appropriately determine the treatment most likely to achieve eradication of the infection and long-term limb salvage with the lowest risk. Regardless, with appropriate application of the techniques currently available for treatment of prosthetic vascular graft infection, long-term elimination of infection and limb preservation can be achieved in the great majority of patients with this grave problem.

Vascular infections: medical and surgical therapies

Vascular infections are a serious problem, often associated with high morbidity and mortality. This article reviews the etiology, pathophysiology, risk factors, and treatment of surgical wound infections, prosthetic graft infections, aortoenteric fistulas (AEFs), and infected vascular ulcers. The primary cause of surgical wound infections is contamination by skin organisms during surgery. Prosthetic graft infections typically result from a progressive wound infection. Comorbid conditions are also related to vascular infections. Nurses should identify vascular patients at increased risk for infection, monitor them closely, and intervene to optimize the healing environment.