Search

Background: Arteriovenous grafts made of polyurethane (PU) have the advantage of early cannulation obviating the placement of a central vein catheter in patients with an acute need for long-term hemodialysis. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the safety, efficacy and complication rate of PU vascular grafts for dialysis access in patients in whom early cannulation was performed., Methods: Between January 2007 and December 2015, 125 straight brachial-axillary grafts were placed in patients with an acute thrombosis of a previous arteriovenous access. Sixty-four were PU and 61 were polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) grafts. Patency and complications rates were compared between the two groups., Results: The median interval from implantation to cannulation was 1 day in the PU group vs 28 days in the PTFE group. Cumulative infection rate at 5 years was 13% and 8% in the PU and the PTFE groups, respectively (P = .6). None of the patients in the PU group developed a pseudoaneurysm necessitating intervention, compared with one patient in the PTFE group. Primary and secondary patency rates did not differ significantly between the two groups. The cumulative median primary patency was 23 months in the PU group vs 26 months in the PTFE group. Median secondary patency was 42 vs 33 months, respectively. Diabetes mellitus was the only factor adversely affecting graft patency in both groups., Conclusions: PU grafts offer the advantage of early cannulation with infection, pseudoaneurysm formation and patency rates similar to those of the PTFE grafts., (Copyright © 2017 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Endograft infection after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is associated with a substantial mortality rate that exceeds 70% in the largest published series. The aim of this study was to review all published reports on infection after TEVAR treated with either preservation of the endograft or surgical excision of the stent graft with the intention of providing a comparison of the safety, efficacy, and durability of the two different treatment strategies., Methods: An extensive electronic health database search was undertaken to identify all articles that were published up to December 2013 reporting on endograft infection after TEVAR. Overall, 55 patients treated with endograft preservation (group A) and 41 patients treated with endograft explantation (group B) were included in this review., Results: The most frequently isolated microorganisms were Streptococcus species (29.4%) and Staphylococcus species (29.4%). The mortality for both groups was 66.6%. The in-hospital mortality rate in group A was 42% and reached 81.8% in a mean follow-up period of 8.6 months. The in-hospital mortality rate in group B was 36.6%. Four (9.7%) further deaths due to reinfection or fistula recurrence were recorded in a mean follow-up period of 15.3 months, leading to an overall mortality of 46.3%. The meta-analysis showed a trend of better outcome with endograft explantation compared with endograft preservation (odds ratio [OR], 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.18-1.48). In group A, a trend of better outcome was revealed when drainage and repair of the fistula were applied (OR, 2.22; 95% CI, 0.55-8.90). A trend of worse outcomes was detected in fistula patients compared with nonfistula patients (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.43-3.74)., Conclusions: Endograft preservation seems not a durable option. It can be offered to patients who refuse surgery or as a palliative option or bridging procedure for severely ill patients. Compared with antibiotic therapy alone, antibiotic therapy followed by drainage and repair of the fistula may control the sepsis, providing, however, mainly a temporary benefit. The presence of fistula is a predictor of dismal outcome. Endograft explantation remains the "gold standard" of treatment. The mortality rate of surgical conversion is much higher in the presence of fistula., (Copyright © 2014 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

We present 3 cases of stent graft infection in patients who were treated with preservation of the endograft. In the first patient, the contamination of the endograft was the consequence of a bleeding aortoenteric fistula, whereas in the second patient, the endograft was implanted into a ruptured contaminated aortic aneurysm because of the patient's hemodynamic instability. In the third patient, the presence of a consistent type Ia endoleak after a chimney graft procedure followed by secondary interventions led to an infection of the stent graft. In each case, a laparotomy was performed with debridement, followed by appropriate antibiotic therapy. The first patient suffered a fatal pulmonary embolism. The other 2 patients are alive 4 and 24 months after the diagnosis of endograft infection. In unstable patients or those with severe comorbidities who cannot tolerate endograft excision and aortic reconstruction, surgical debridement followed by appropriate antibiotic therapy can be a temporary or bridging solution., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To review the published outcomes of aortic endograft infection treated with preservation of the stent-graft., Methods: An extensive electronic health database search was undertaken to identify all articles published up to May 2013 that reported endograft infection after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) in which treatment included preservation of the stent-graft. The search found 17 articles with 29 patients (27 men; mean age 73.1±7.6 years) fulfilling the inclusion criteria., Results: In 2 (7%) cases, the endograft infection was diagnosed within 30 days of the initial procedure; 4 (14%) were identified within 3 months and the remaining 23 (79%) within 12 months. Staphylococcus species, Streptococcus species, and Escherichia coli were the most common isolated microorganisms. Seven (24%) had a secondary aortoenteric fistula after EVAR. Twelve (41%) patients received only antibiotic therapy, while the remaining had an additional procedure (drainage, surgical debridement, sac irrigation, and/or omentoplasty). The in-hospital mortality was 21% (n=6). During a mean follow-up of 11.4±3.1 months, 7 more patients died (overall mortality 45%). None of the 7 patients with fistula survived. Half (50%) of the 12 patients who received only antibiotic therapy died, while 7 (41%) of the 17 patients who underwent an additional procedure died during follow-up., Conclusion: Among patients treated for endograft infection without explantation, those with aortoenteric fistula had the worst outcome. There is evidence for lower mortality in patients who underwent an additional procedure, such as drainage, surgical debridement, and sac irrigation. Larger studies are needed to examine the efficacy of this approach compared to surgical conversion with endograft excision and in situ reconstruction or extra-anatomical bypass.