How To Diagnose and Manage Infected Endografts after Endovascular Aneurysm Repair (original) (raw)
Related papers
Graft infection after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair
Journal of Vascular Surgery, 2011
Introduction: Although the natural history and management of infected open abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair is well described, only sporadic case reports have described the fate of patients with infected endografts placed in the abdominal aorta. The present study describes a tertiary referral center's experience with infected endovascular aneurysm repairs (EVARs). Methods: The medical records of 1302 open and endovascular aortic procedures were queried from January 2000 to January 2010. The cases were reviewed for prior aortic procedures, prosthetic implants, and etiology of current open procedure. Demographics, operative details, and perioperative courses were documented. Results: Nine patients (1 woman) with a mean age of 71 years had an EVAR that later required an open procedure for explantation and surgical revision for suspected infection. All grafts were explanted through a midline transperitoneal approach, with a mean time to explant of 33 months. The explanted endografts included 4 Zenith (Cook, Bloomington, Ind), 2 Ancure (Endovascular Technologies, Menlo Park, Calif), 2 Excluders (Gore, Flagstaff, Ariz), and 1 AneuRx (Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minn). Eight of the nine original EVARs were performed at other hospitals; 1 patient had EVAR and open explant at the University of Michigan. All patients had preoperative computed tomography scans, except one who was transferred in extremis with a gastrointestinal hemorrhage. Three patients also had a tagged leukocyte scan, and two had magnetic resonance imaging to further reinforce the suspicion of infection before explantation and bypass planning. Rifampin-soaked Hemashield (Boston Scientific) in situ grafts were used in four patients, with extra-anatomic (axillary-bifemoral) bypass used in the other five. The in situ group had no positive preoperative or postoperative cultures, with the exception of the unstable patient who died the day of surgery. For the other five patients, positive tissue cultures were found for Bacteroides, Escherichia coli, coagulase-negative Staphylococcus, Streptococcus, and Candida. Three patients were found to have aortic-enteric fistula, two of whom died before discharge from the hospital. The remaining seven survived to discharge. Average length of stay was 22 days, with a median follow-up of 11 months. Conclusion: This series of infected EVARs is the largest group of infected AAA endografts reported to date. Because EVAR of AAAs is presently the most common method of repair, development of endograft infection, while rare, can be managed with acceptable mortality rates. Patients presenting with aortic-enteric fistula after EVAR appear to have a more virulent course.
2016
Even though aggressive surgical management is recommended for most cases of aortic endoprosthesis infection, because of the high surgical risk presented, conservative treatment should also be considered in selected cases. We present here a clinical case of a 84-year-old patient, presenting with low back pain, fever and weight loss for two months. He had undergone an endovascular infra renal aortic aneurysm repair three years ago. A computed tomography scans demonstrated bubbles inside the sac and a perianeurysmatic collection. A puncture of this collection was undertaken and the diagnosis of aortic endograft infection, caused by Propionibacterium sp, was made. The patient was successfully managed conservatively with parenteral followed by long-term oral antibiotic therapy.
Endografts for the Treatment of Aortic Infection
Seminars in Vascular Surgery, 2011
Aortic infection is an uncommon but life-threatening condition. Conservative medical treatment is insufficient in many cases because of the high risk of persistent infection, aortic rupture, and death. Conventional open surgical treatment consists of extensive tissue debridement, complete removal of the infected prosthetic material, and arterial reconstruction with anatomical or extra-anatomical bypass. This treatment is associated with significant morbidity and mortality; in order to avoid these, minimally invasive options with endovascular aneurysm repair have been attempted. Endovascular repair is minimally invasive and provides rapid aneurysm exclusion and prompt control of bleeding in the face of hemodynamic instability. Despite this, a major concern is the risk associated with endograft placement in an infected bed, leading to controversy about the wisdom of using endovascular aneurysm repair in this setting for mid-and long-term periods. The rate of recurrent infection is unclear because the majority of information exists in exceptional single cases or short-term series, while unsuccessful results with this approach are less likely to be reported. This review aims to assess the role of endovascular therapy for aortic infections, including its applicability as definitive or bridge repair in mycotic aneurysm, aortobronchial, aortoesophageal, and aortoenteric fistulas, in terms of both primary and secondary outcomes (ie, after previous open or endovascular aneurysm repair).
EJVES Extra, 2005
Endograft infection is a rare event, with few reports in the literature. This report describes delayed infection of an aortic endoprosthesis that eventually resulted in abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) rupture. The procedure was performed in an angiographic suite. In the postoperative period the patient developed a central venous line infection. This appears to be the first recognized and reported case in which the infected aortic neck completely dilated due to the radial force of the stent graft.
Aortic endograft infection: A report of 2 cases
International Journal of Surgery, 2010
Introduction: Endograft infection has received less attention than other complication, so that little is known about the general features, risk factors, and treatment. The purpose of this short series is to examine our experience of infective complications after EVAR. Material and methods: Between November 2000 and December 2008, 247 patients underwent endograft repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm. Follow-up protocol included clinical visit and computed-tomography angiography 1, 4 and 12 months after the intervention, and yearly thereafter. No duplex control was performed on a regular basis. Results: Median follow-up was 16 months (range, 3e92); two patients (2/244, 0.8%) developed an endograft infection, 12 and 36-months after the intervention respectively. On admission, both patients complained septic-like fever and abdominal discomfort; leukocytes-labelled scans did not reveal pathologic traits whereas spiral computed-tomography confirmed the suspicious of endograft infection. They underwent endograft removal and extra-anatomic axillo-bifemoral bypass ; both survived and are still alive 12 and 6-months after the intervention. Isolated microorganisms were Candida albicans and Escherichia coli in one patient, and Haemophilus aphrophilus in the other. Conclusion: Endograft infection is an uncommon occurrence, Spiral computed-tomography seems to be an essential diagnostic tool. Graft removal was successful in our high-risk patients. A multicenter registry should be started to define guidelines.
A multicenter experience with infected abdominal aortic endograft explantation
Journal of Vascular Surgery, 2017
Objective: Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is widely used with excellent results, but its infectious complications can be devastating. In this paper, we report a multicenter experience with infected EVAR, symptoms, and options for explantation and their outcome. Methods: We have reviewed all consecutive endograft explants for infection at 11 French university centers following EVAR, defined as index EVAR, from 1998 to 2015. Diagnosis of infected aortic endograft was made on the basis of clinical findings, cultures, imaging studies, and intraoperative findings. Results: Thirty-three patients with an infected aortic endograft were identified. In this group, at index EVAR, six patients (18%) presented with a groin or psoas infection and six patients (18%) presented with a general infection, including catheter-related infection (n ¼ 3), prostatitis (n ¼ 1), cholecystitis (n ¼ 1), and pneumonia (n ¼ 1). After index EVAR, eight patients underwent successful inferior mesenteric artery embolization for a type II endoleak within 6 months of index EVAR and one patient received an additional stent for a type Ib endoleak 1 week after index EVAR. Median time between the first clinical signs of infection and endograft explantation was 30 days (range, 1 day to 2.2 years). The most common presenting characteristics were pain and fever in 21 patients (64%) and fever alone in 8 patients (24%). Suprarenal fixation was present in 20 of 33 endografts (60%). All patients underwent endograft explantation, with bowel resection in 12 patients (36%) presenting with an endograft-enteric fistula. Methods of reconstruction were graft placement in situ in 30 patients and extra-anatomic bypass in 3 patients. In situ conduits were aortic cryopreserved allografts in 23, polyester silver graft in 5, and autogenous femoral vein in 2. Microbiology specimens obtained from the endograft and the aneurysm were positive in 24 patients (74%). Gram-positive organisms were the most commonly found in 18 patients (55%). Early mortality (30 days or in the hospital) was 39% (n ¼ 13) in relation to graft blowout (n ¼ 3), multiple organ failure (n ¼ 6), colon necrosis (n ¼ 3), and peripheral embolism (n ¼ 1). At 1 year, the rates of patient survival, graft-related complications, and reinfection were 44%, 10%, and 5%, respectively. Conclusions: Abdominal aortic endograft explantation for infection is high risk and associated with graft-enteric fistula in one-third of the cases. Larger multicenter studies are needed to better understand the risk factors and to improve preventive measures at index EVAR and during follow-up.
Management of an Aortic Graft Infection after Endovascular Aneurysm Repair
Angiology and Vascular Surgery, 2019
A 77-years-old hypertensive patient who underwent EVAR for an enlarging 7-cm Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm (AAA) Using a Lombard Aorfix Graft. Protective embolization of the patient inferior mesenteric artery. The post-operative CT Angiography confirmed a successful treatment of the aneurysm without need of further intervention. The patient attends for follow up controls afterward. Twenty-one months after the EVAR, the patient admitted due to abdominal pain and elevated infection parameters for further investigations. An abdominal CT scan is done and demonstrated a remarkable contrast enhancement of the aneurysm wall and periaortic fluid collections (Figure 1). An empirical antibiotic therapy was started with Meropenem. The following days started the patients to develop high fever. The blood cultures revealed infection with Staphauereus; accordingly the antibiotic was changed to Linezolid. For both diagnostic and potentially therapeutic purposes, CT guided drainage of the periaortic fluid collections was done (Figure 2). Two days later we decided to operate the patient. A complete surgical excision of the infected aortic stent was done. The intraoperative findings were remarkable for inflamed aneurysmal sac with thick purulent exudates surrounding the loosely incorporated graft (Figure 3).
Annals of vascular surgery, 2015
to preliminary report on epidemiology, risk factors, diagnosis, treatments and outcomes in a multicenter series of patients treated for EVAR infection and detected by a Italian National enquiry METHODS: From June 2012 twenty-six cases of abdominal aortic endograft infection were collected by a National Enquiry and recorded in the Italian National Registry of Infection in EVAR (R.I.-EVAR). Cases collected were available for patients submitted to EVAR implantation from January 2004 to June 2013. Mean time from EVAR treatment to infection diagnosis was 20.5±20.3 months (range 1-72). In 6 cases (23.1%) an aorto-enteric fistula (AEF) was detected. Positive microbiological cultures were found in 20 patients (76.9%). More than 1 infectious agent was found in 6 cases (19.2%). EVAR infection treatment was conservative in 4 cases, endovascular in 2. Endograft excision was performed in 10 cases by conventional treatment (aortic stump+extra-anatomic bypass) and in 10 cases by in situ reconstruc...
Treatment and outcomes of aortic endograft infection
Journal of vascular surgery, 2016
This study examined the medical and surgical management and outcomes of patients with aortic endograft infection after abdominal endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) or thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). Patients diagnosed with infected aortic endografts after EVAR/TEVAR between January 1, 2004, and January 1, 2014, were reviewed using a standardized, multi-institutional database. Demographic, comorbidity, medical management, surgical, and outcomes data were included. An aortic endograft infection was diagnosed in 206 patients (EVAR, n = 180; TEVAR, n = 26) at a mean 22 months after implant. Clinical findings at presentation included pain (66%), fever/chills (66%), and aortic fistula (27%). Ultimately, 197 patients underwent surgical management after a mean of 153 days. In situ aortic replacement was performed in 186 patients (90%) using cryopreserved allograft in 54, neoaortoiliac system in 21, prosthetic in 111 (83% soaked in antibiotic), and 11 patients underwent axillary-...