Evolution from axillofemoral to in situ prosthetic reconstruction for the treatment of aortic graft infections at a single center

Objective: The primary purpose of this study was to analyze the clinical outcome in patients treated for aortic graft infections with in situ reconstruction (ISR). As a secondary aim, the outcomes were compared between patients who had similar clinical characteristics and extent of infection, needed total graft excision, and had either ISR or axillofemoral reconstruction (AXFR). Methods. 117 consecutive patients treated for aortic graft infection over a 20 year period from January 1981 to December 2001 were identified. 52 patients had prosthetic ISR, 49 had AXFR, and 16 had other reconstructions. The ISR patients treated with total (n = 35) or partial (n = 17) graft excision comprised the primary analysis. A second analysis was done between 34 ISR and 43 AXFR patients (non-concurrent groups), as stated above. Primary outcome measures were early and late procedure-related death, primary graft patency and limb loss. Secondary outcomes were operative morbidity, patient survival, and graft reinfection rates. Results. There were 40 males and 12 females with a mean age of 69 years treated with ISR. 43 patients had Rifampin-soaked grafts and 39 had omental flap or other autogenous coverage. Operative morbidity occurred in 23 patients (44%). There were 4 early and no late procedure-related deaths after a median follow up of 3.4 years (range, 2 months to 9.6 years). Primary patency and limb salvage rates at 5 years were 89% and 100%, respectively. Graft reinfection occurred in 6 patients (11.5%) and was not associated with procedure-related death. In the comparative analysis, the procedure-related death rate for patients treated with ISR was not different than those treated with AXFR (9% versus 23%; P = 0.11). There was a significant improvement in primary patency between ISR and AXFR at 5 years (89% versus 48%; P =.01). Limb salvage was 100% for ISR and 89% for AXFR at 5 years (P =.06). The incidence of graft reinfection was similar in both groups: 11% for ISR and 17% for AXFR (P =.28). Major complications or procedure-related deaths occurred in 12 patients after ISR (30%) and 26 patients (60%) after AXFR (P <.04). Conclusion: ISR is a safe and effective alternative in the treatment of select patients with aortic graft infection. Graft reinfection occurred in 11.5% of the patients. The graft patency and limb salvages rates are excellent.