Search

Objective: Near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) is a noninvasive technique with the potential to determine the degree of tissue oxygenation. The aim of the current study was to investigate the use of NIRS as a reliable method of detecting calf muscle pump dysfunction in groups of patients with venous disease. Methods: Patients with superficial venous insufficiency (SW) or history of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) were classified according to the comprehensive classification system for chronic venous disorders (clinical class, etiology, anatomy, and pathophysiology) and compared with controls (GROUP variable). A 10-stage evaluation of ambulatory venous function was performed, and corresponding values of calf regional oxygen saturation (crSaO(2), %) at each phase were recorded (TIME variable). Thereafter, the percentage changes of crSaO(2) values (A scores, %) between a given phase and the reference phase were estimated. Differences among groups and phases were evaluated using analysis of variance. Subgroup analysis between C0-C2 and C3-C6 patients was performed. The receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to detect the best predictive capability for SW and DVT. Results: A total of 30 patients with SW, 31 patients with DVT, and 34 controls were included in the study. A statistically significant effect of TIME (F = 382.4; P < .001) and TIME x GROUP interaction (F = 6.3; P < .001) was recorded. Concerning prediction, we found a statistically significant area under the curve (AUC) for SW (AUC = 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.83; P = .003) and for DVT (AUC = 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-0.92; P < .0001) patients. Conclusions: The measurement of crSaO(2) using NIBS detected alterations in calf muscle pump oxygenation during exercise and differences in tissue oxygenation among SW patients, DVT patients, and controls. NIBS may represent a reliable noninvasive tool for the study of calf muscle dysfunction in venous disease and a useful vehicle for generating testable hypotheses in the laboratory setting.

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 debridennent, 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.

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.

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.