Literature DB >> 8523602

Differences in early versus late extracavitary arterial graft infections.

K D Calligaro1, F J Veith, M L Schwartz, M J Dougherty, D A DeLaurentis.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The purpose of this report was to determine differences in presentation, bacteriology, management, and outcome of early (EGIs) versus late extracavitary arterial graft infections (LGIs).
METHODS: Between July 1, 1979, and June 30, 1994, we treated 141 patients with infected extracavitary arterial grafts (112 prosthetic, 29 vein) with selective partial or complete graft preservation.
RESULTS: A total of 99 (70%) EGIs (< 2 months) and 42 (30%) LGIs (4 to 96 months) were involved. The hospital mortality rate was 14% (20 of 141), and the amputation rate in survivors was 13% (16 of 121). No significant difference in mortality (16% [16 of 99] vs 10% (4 of 42]) or limb loss (16% [13 of 83] vs 8% [3 of 38]) was seen between EGIs and LGIs, respectively (p > 0.05). Patients with EGIs were as likely to have a disrupted anastomosis (17% [17 of 99] vs 21% [9 of 42]) or systemic sepsis (4% [4 of 99] vs 4% [2 of 42]) as patients with LGIs, respectively (p > 0.05). Patients with EGIs were more likely to have patent, intact grafts and to be treated by complete graft preservation (61% [61 of 99] vs 26% [11 of 42]) (p = 0.0001). In comparison, patients with LGIs were more likely to have occluded grafts and to require subtotal graft excision (48% [20 of 42] vs 18% [18 of 99]) (p = 0.0001). Surviving patients with EGIs treated by complete graft preservation were more likely to have successful healing of their wounds after long-term follow-up (average 3 years) than patients with LGIs (79% [41 of 52] vs 40% [4 of 10], respectively) (p = 0.03). The pathogens cultured from wounds of EGIs versus LGIs were pure gram-positive bacteria in 49 (49%) versus 19 (46%), pure gram-negatives in 18 (18%) versus 11 (26%), and both types in 33 (33%) versus 12 (28%) (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Complete graft preservation can be attempted more frequently and is more likely to be successful in EGIs than in LGIs. No difference in bacteriology was seen between the two groups. Graft-preserving treatment can be successful but should only be cautiously attempted in patients with late extracavitary arterial graft infections.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 8523602     DOI: 10.1016/s0741-5214(95)70058-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Vasc Surg        ISSN: 0741-5214            Impact factor:   4.268


  6 in total

1.  Conservative management of a methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)-infected aortobifemoral graft: report of a case.

Authors:  T Nakazawa; H Yasuhara; H Shigematsu; T Muto
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 2.549

2.  Bio-absorbable antibiotic impregnated beads for the treatment of prosthetic vascular graft infections.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Genovese; Efthymios D Avgerinos; Donald T Baril; Michel S Makaroun; Rabih A Chaer
Journal:  Vascular       Date:  2016-02-18       Impact factor: 1.285

Review 3.  Surgical site infections in older adults: epidemiology and management strategies.

Authors:  Michael H Young; Laraine Washer; Preeti N Malani
Journal:  Drugs Aging       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 3.923

4.  Radiolabelled leucocyte scintigraphy versus conventional radiological imaging for the management of late, low-grade vascular prosthesis infections.

Authors:  P A Erba; G Leo; M Sollini; C Tascini; R Boni; R N Berchiolli; F Menichetti; M Ferrari; E Lazzeri; G Mariani
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2013-10-19       Impact factor: 9.236

5.  Infective endocarditis complicated by aortic graft infection and osteomyelitis: case report and review of literature.

Authors:  Elie Zouein; Robert Wetz; Neville Mobarakai; Samer Hassan; Iris Tong
Journal:  Int J Gen Med       Date:  2012-07-05

6.  Risk factors associated with surgical site infections following vascular surgery at a German university hospital.

Authors:  E Ott; F-Ch Bange; D Sohr; O Teebken; F Mattner
Journal:  Epidemiol Infect       Date:  2012-08-21       Impact factor: 4.434

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.