RESUMO
Objective: To assess the effects of the 2020 United States Public Health Service (PHS) "Increased Risk" Guidelines update. Background: Donors labeled as "Increased Risk" for transmission of infectious diseases have been found to have decreased organ utilization rates despite no significant impact on recipient survival. Recently, the PHS provided an updated guideline focused on "Increased Risk" organ donors, which included the removal of the "Increased Risk" label and the elimination of the separate informed consent form, although the actual increased risk status of donors is still ultimately transmitted to transplant physicians. We sought to analyze the effect of this update on organ utilization rates. Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network database which compared donor organ utilization in the 2 years before the June 2020 PHS Guideline update for increased-risk donor organs (June 2018-May 2020) versus the 2 years after the update (August 2020-July 2022). The organ utilization rate for each donor was determined by dividing the number of organs transplanted by the total number of organs available for procurement. Student t test and multivariable logistic regression models were used for analysis. Results: There were 17,272 donors in the preupdate cohort and 17,922 donors in the postupdate cohort; of these, 4,977 (28.8%) and 3,893 (21.7%) donors were considered "Increased Risk", respectively. There was a 2% decrease in overall organ utilization rates after the update, driven by a 3% decrease in liver utilization rates and a 2% decrease in lung utilization rates. After multivariable adjustment, donors in the postupdate cohort had 10% decreased odds of having all organs transplanted. Conclusions: The 2020 PHS "Increased Risk" Donor Guideline update was not associated with an increase in organ utilization rates in the first 2 years after its implementation, despite a decrease in the proportion of donors considered to be at higher risk. Further efforts to educate the community on the safe usage of high-risk organs are needed and may increase organ utilization.
RESUMO
Heart transplantation is a pivotal treatment of end-stage heart failure, and recent advancements have extended median posttransplant life expectancy. However, despite the progress in surgical techniques and medical treatment, heart transplant patients still face complications such as rejection, infections, and drug toxicity. CT is a reliable tool for detecting most of these complications, whereas MR imaging is particularly adept at identifying pericardial pathologies and signs of rejection. Awareness of these nuances by radiologists, cardiologists, and surgeons is desired to optimize care, reduce morbidities, and enhance survival.
Assuntos
Transplante de Coração , Radiologia , Humanos , Transplante de Coração/efeitos adversos , Transplante de Coração/métodos , Radiografia , Imageamento por Ressonância Magnética , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/diagnóstico por imagem , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/etiologiaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Use of venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is increasing, but candidacy selection processes are variable and subject to bias. RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the reasons behind venovenous ECMO candidacy decisions, and are decisions made consistently across patients? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Prospective observational study of all patients, admitted or outside hospital referrals, considered for venovenous ECMO at a tertiary referral center. Relevant clinical data and reasons for candidacy determination were cross-referenced with other noncandidates and candidates and were assessed qualitatively. RESULTS: Eighty-one consultations resulted in 44 noncandidates (54%), 29 candidates (36%; nine of whom subsequently underwent cannulation), and eight deferred decisions (10%). Fifteen unique contraindications were identified, variably present across all patients. Five contraindications were invoked as the sole reason to deny ECMO to a patient. In patients with three or more contraindications, additional contraindications were cited even if the severity was relatively minor. All but four contraindications invoked to deny ECMO to a patient were nonprohibitive for at least one other candidate. Contraindications documented in noncandidates were present but not mentioned in 21 other noncandidates (47%). Twenty-six candidates (90%) had at least one contraindication that was prohibitive in a noncandidate, including a contraindication that was the sole reason to deny ECMO. Contraindications were proposed as informing three prognostic domains, through which patterns of inconsistency could be understood better: (1) irreversible underlying pulmonary process, (2) unsurvivable critical illness, and (3) clinical condition too compromised for meaningful recovery. INTERPRETATION: ECMO candidacy decisions are inconsistent. We identified four patterns of inconsistency in our center and propose a three-domain model for understanding and categorizing contraindications, yielding five lessons that may improve candidacy decision processes until further research can guide practice more definitively.
RESUMO
The current understanding of the safety of heart transplantation from COVID-19+ donors is uncertain. Preliminary studies suggest that heart transplants from these donors may be feasible. We analyzed 1-year outcomes in COVID-19+ donor heart recipients using 1:3 propensity matching. The OPTN database was queried for adult heart transplant recipients between 1 January 2020 and 30 September 2022. COVID-19+ donors were defined as those who tested positive on NATs or antigen tests within 21 days prior to procurement. Multiorgan transplants, retransplants, donors without COVID-19 testing, and recipients allocated under the old heart allocation system were excluded. A total of 7211 heart transplant recipients met the inclusion criteria, including 316 COVID-19+ donor heart recipients. Further, 290 COVID-19+ donor heart recipients were matched to 870 COVID-19- donor heart recipients. Survival was similar between the groups at 30 days (p = 0.46), 6 months (p = 0.17), and 1 year (p = 0.07). Recipients from COVID-19+ donors in the matched cohort were less likely to experience postoperative acute rejection prior to discharge (p = 0.01). National COVID-19+ donor heart usage varied by region: region 11 transplanted the most COVID-19+ hearts (15.8%), and region 6 transplanted the fewest (3.2%). Our findings indicate that COVID-19+ heart transplantation can be performed with safe early outcomes. Further analyses are needed to determine if long-term outcomes are equivalent between groups.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Donation after circulatory death (DCD) heart transplantation has promising early survival, but the effects on rejection remain unclear. METHODS: The United Network for Organ Sharing database was queried for adult heart transplants from December 1, 2019, to December 31, 2021. Multiorgan transplants and loss to follow-up were excluded. The primary outcome was acute rejection, comparing DCD and donation after brain death (DBD) transplants. RESULTS: A total of 292 DCD and 5,582 DBD transplants met study criteria. Most DCD transplants were transplanted at status 3-4 (61.0%) compared to 58.6% of DBD recipients at status 1-2. DCD recipients were less likely to be hospitalized at transplant (26.7% vs 58.3%, p < 0.001) and to require intra-aortic balloon pumping (IABP; 9.6% vs 28.9%, p < 0.001), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO; 0.3% vs 5.9%, p < 0.001) or temporary left ventricular assist device (LVAD; 1.0% vs 2.7%, p < 0.001). DCD recipients were more likely to have acute rejection prior to discharge (23.3% vs 18.4%, p = 0.044) and to be hospitalized for rejection (23.4% vs 11.4%, p = 0.003) at a median follow-up of 15 months; the latter remained significant after propensity matching. On multivariable logistic regression, DCD donation was an independent predictor of acute rejection (odds ratio [OR] 1.47, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.00-2.15, p = 0.048) and hospitalization for rejection (OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.06-3.70, p = 0.026). On center-specific subgroup analysis, DCD recipients continued to have higher rates of hospitalization for rejection (23.4% vs 13.8%, p = 0.043). CONCLUSIONS: DCD recipients are more likely to experience acute rejection. Early survival is similar between DCD and DBD recipients, but long-term implications of increased early rejection in DCD recipients require further investigation.
Assuntos
Transplante de Coração , Obtenção de Tecidos e Órgãos , Adulto , Humanos , Doadores de Tecidos , Sobrevivência de Enxerto , Morte Encefálica , Estudos Retrospectivos , MorteRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: The objective was to assess whether race/ethnicity is an independent predictor of failure to rescue (FTR) after orthotopic heart transplantation (OHT). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Outcomes following OHT vary by patient level factors; for example, non-White patients have worse outcomes than White patients after OHT. Failure to rescue is an important factor associated with cardiac surgery outcomes, but its relationship to demographic factors is unknown. METHODS: Using the United Network for Organ Sharing database, we included all adult patients who underwent primary isolated OHT between 1/1/2006 snd 6/30/2021. FTR was defined as the inability to prevent mortality after at least one of the UNOS-designated postoperative complications. Donor, recipient, and transplant characteristics, including complications and FTR, were compared across race/ethnicity. Logistic regression models were created to identify factors associated with complications and FTR. Kaplan Meier and adjusted Cox proportional hazards models evaluated the association between race/ethnicity and posttransplant survival. RESULTS: There were 33,244 adult, isolated heart transplant recipients included: the distribution of race/ethnicity was 66% (n=21,937) White, 21.2% (7,062) Black, 8.3% (2,768) Hispanic, and 3.3% (1,096) Asian. The frequency of complications and FTR differed significantly by race/ethnicity. After adjustment, Hispanic recipients were more likely to experience FTR than White recipients (OR 1.327, 95% CI[1.075-1.639], P =0.02). Black recipients had lower 5-year survival compared with other races/ethnicities (HR 1.276, 95% CI[1.207-1.348], P <0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In the US, Black recipients have an increased risk of mortality after OHT compared with White recipients, without associated differences in FTR. In contrast, Hispanic recipients have an increased likelihood of FTR, but no significant mortality difference compared with White recipients. These findings highlight the need for tailored approaches to addressing race/ethnicity-based health inequities in the practice of heart transplantation.
Assuntos
Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Cardíacos , Etnicidade , Disparidades nos Níveis de Saúde , Transplante de Coração , Grupos Raciais , Adulto , Humanos , Transplante de Coração/mortalidade , Estudos Retrospectivos , Doadores de Tecidos , SobrevidaRESUMO
Donation after circulatory death (DCD) donor hearts recovered using the direct procurement and perfusion method experience variable durations of warm ischemia at the time of procurement (WIP). We used the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network database to assess the effect of WIP on 30-day mortality after DCD heart transplantation. The analysis evaluated outcomes in 237 recipients of DCD heart transplantation, demonstrating an optimal WIP cut point of <36 minutes. Multivariable logistic regression modeling identified donor left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <60% as an independent predictor of 30-day mortality. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for predicting 30-day mortality based on WIP ≥36 minutes and donor LVEF <60% was 0.90. Based on these findings, we do not recommend proceeding with DCD heart transplantation for patients with WIP ≥36 minutes, particularly in donors with LVEF <60%.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Since the beginning of the pandemic, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has caused debilitating lung failure in many patients. Practitioners have understandably been hesitant to use lungs from donors with COVID-19 for transplantation. This study aimed to analyze the characteristics and short-term outcomes of lung transplantation from donors with recent positive COVID-19 testing results. METHODS: Lung transplantations performed between January 2020 and June 2022 were queried from the United Network for Organ Sharing database. Pediatric, multiorgan, and repeat lung transplantations were excluded. Propensity scoring matched recipients of lungs from donors with recent positive COVID-19 testing results to recipients of lungs from donors with negative COVID-19 testing results, and comparisons of 30-day mortality, 3-month mortality, and perioperative outcomes were performed. RESULTS: A total of 5270 patients underwent lung transplantation during the study dates, including 51 patients who received lungs from donors with recent positive COVID-19 testing results. Forty-five recipients of lungs from donors with recent positive COVID-19 testing results were matched with 135 recipients of lungs from donors with negative COVID-19 testing results. After matching, there was no difference in 30-day (log-rank P = .42) and 3-month (log-rank P = .42) mortality. The incidence of other perioperative complications was similar between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: The 30-day and 3-month survival outcomes were similar between recipients of lungs from donors with recent positive COVID-19 testing results and recipients of lungs from donors with negative COVID-19 testing results. This finding suggests that highly selected COVID-19-positive donors without evidence of active infection may be safely considered for lung transplantation. Further studies should explore long-term outcomes to provide reassurance about the safety of this practice.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Studies have demonstrated the devastating effects of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on vulnerable populations. Although they receive close follow-up, heart transplant recipients represent a particularly vulnerable population, given long-term immunosuppression and comorbid conditions. We sought to investigate the association between race/ethnicity and the probability of death due to COVID-19 in adult heart transplant recipients in the United States. METHODS: Adult isolated heart transplant recipients were identified using the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network database. Recipients who were described as deceased or lost to follow-up before January 2020 were excluded. Recipients were stratified into 4 cohorts by race/ethnicity. The primary outcome of interest was death due to COVID-19. RESULTS: A total of 22 157 adult recipients were identified. During the course of follow-up, 153 recipients had COVID-19 reported as the primary cause of death. COVID-19 mortality was significantly different between race/ethnicity cohorts (Black, n = 34 [0.79%]; Hispanic, n = 23 [1.33%]; White, n = 92 [0.60%]; other, n = 4 [0.44%]; P = .007). COVID-19 was listed as a contributing cause of mortality in 0.12% of Black, 0.23% of Hispanic, 0.04% of White, and 0.33% of other recipients (P = .002). No significant difference in non-COVID mortality or all-cause mortality was observed. After multivariable adjustment, Black (hazard ratio, 2.78 [1.40-5.52]; P = .003) and Hispanic (hazard ratio, 3.92 [1.88-8.16]; P < .001) recipients were at higher risk of death due to COVID-19 compared with White recipients. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with White recipients, Black and Hispanic recipients experienced higher rates of COVID-19 mortality after transplantation. These findings suggest that racial/ethnic disparities of COVID-19 mortality in the general population persist in adult heart transplant recipients.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Disparidades nos Níveis de Saúde , Transplante de Coração , Transplantados , Adulto , Humanos , COVID-19/etnologia , COVID-19/mortalidade , Etnicidade , Hispânico ou Latino , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia , Brancos , Negro ou Afro-AmericanoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Donor organ demand continues to outpace supply in heart transplantation. Utilization of donation after circulatory death (DCD) hearts could significantly increase heart donor availability for patients with advanced heart failure. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to describe hemodynamic and clinical profiles of DCD hearts in comparison to standard of care (SOC) hearts donated after brain death (DBD). METHODS: This single-center retrospective cohort study of consecutive heart transplant recipients analyzed right heart catheterization measurements, inotrope scores, echocardiograms, and clinical outcomes between DCD and DBD heart recipients. RESULTS: Between April 2016 and February 2022, 47 DCD and 166 SOC hearts were transplanted. Median time from DCD consent to transplant was significantly shorter compared with SOC waiting list time (17 days [6-28 days] vs 70 days [23-240 days]; P < 0.001). Right heart function was significantly impaired in DCD recipients compared with SOC recipients 1 week post-transplant (higher median right atrial pressure (10 mm Hg [8-13 mm Hg] vs 7 mm Hg [5-11 mm Hg]; P < 0.001), higher right atrial pressure to pulmonary capillary wedge pressure ratio (0.64 [0.54-0.82] vs 0.57 [0.43-0.73]; P = 0.016), and lower pulmonary arterial pulsatility index (1.66 [1.27-2.50] vs 2.52 [1.63-3.82]; P < 0.001), but was similar between groups by 3 weeks post-transplant. DCD and SOC recipient mortality was similar at 30 days (DCD 0 vs SOC 2%; P = 0.29) and 1 year post-transplant (DCD 3% vs SOC 8%; P = 0.16). CONCLUSIONS: DCD heart utilization is associated with transient post-transplant right heart dysfunction and short-term clinical outcomes otherwise similar to transplantation using DBD hearts.
Assuntos
Insuficiência Cardíaca , Hemodinâmica , Coração , Insuficiência Cardíaca/cirurgia , Humanos , Artéria Pulmonar , Estudos RetrospectivosRESUMO
Lung retransplantation remains the standard treatment of irreversible lung allograft failure. The most common indications for lung retransplantation are acute graft failure, chronic lung allograft dysfunction, and postoperative airway complications. Careful patient selection with regards to indications, anatomy, extrapulmonary organ dysfunction (specifically renal dysfunction), and immunologic consideration are of utmost importance. The conduct of the lung retransplantation operation is arduous with special considerations given to operative approach, type of surgery (single vs bilateral), use of extracorporeal circulatory support, and hematological management. Outcomes have improved significantly for most patients, nearing short and midterm outcomes of primary lung recipients in select cases.
Assuntos
Rejeição de Enxerto , Transplante de Pulmão , Rejeição de Enxerto/etiologia , Rejeição de Enxerto/cirurgia , Humanos , Pulmão , Transplante de Pulmão/efeitos adversos , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/etiologia , Reoperação , Estudos RetrospectivosRESUMO
Background: Heart failure-related cardiogenic shock (HF-CS) is increasingly common. Moderate/severe functional mitral regurgitation (FMR) is commonly seen in patients presenting with decompensated heart failure and is associated with worse outcomes. Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices are increasingly used to provide hemodynamic support for ongoing CS. There is no description of the impact of Impella device on hemodynamic response when used in combination with preexisting FMR. Methods: Retrospective review of patients aged ≥18 years, who underwent Impella 5.5 implant for HF-CS, and who had a transthoracic echocardiogram performed pre- and post-Impella. Results: Of 24 patients, 33% had moderate-to-severe/severe FMR, 38% had mild-moderate/moderate FMR, and 29% had trace/mild FMR on pre-Impella transthoracic echocardiogram. Additional right ventricular assist device was simultaneously inserted in 3 patients, of whom 1 had severe, 1 had moderate, and another had mild FMR pre-Impella. Despite maximally tolerated Impella unloading, 6 patients (25%) had persistent moderate-severe/severe FMR, and 9 (37.5%) patients had persistent moderate FMR. Overall, however, there was a decrease in central venous pressure, pulmonary artery diastolic pressure, serum lactate, and vasoactive-inotrope score at 24 âhours post-Impella, and survival was high at 83%. Conclusions: In a retrospective cohort of patients admitted with HF-CS who underwent Impella 5.5 implant for hemodynamic support, Impella did not seem to acutely ameliorate FMR severity. Despite this, there was a significant improvement in hemodynamic response at 24 âhours post-Impella. In carefully selected patients, especially those with isolated left ventricular failure, Impella 5.5 may provide adequate hemodynamic support even in the presence of higher severity FMR.
RESUMO
Accidental hypothermia with a core temperature below 28°C is associated with an increased risk of hemodynamic instability. It is difficult to predict which patients will survive with a favorable neurologic outcome; therefore, decision-making regarding extracorporeal support is not straightforward. We report a case of rewarming using veno-venous dual-lumen cannula as an alternative to veno-arterial support with full recovery and normal neurologic examination. In centers where extracorporeal membrane oxygenation is available, rewarming using veno-venous dual-lumen extracorporeal support may be a useful strategy to mitigate the risks associated with veno-arterial extracorporeal support.
Assuntos
Oxigenação por Membrana Extracorpórea , Hipotermia , Cânula/efeitos adversos , Oxigenação por Membrana Extracorpórea/efeitos adversos , Humanos , Hipotermia/terapia , Reaquecimento/efeitos adversosRESUMO
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a global pandemic increasingly encountered in the clinical setting. It typically manifests as a respiratory illness, although cardiac involvement is common and portends a worse prognosis. We present the case of a 56-year-old male admitted with COVID-19 fulminant myocarditis and cardiogenic shock. We discuss important aspects of the multidisciplinary and interventional care involved in treating cardiogenic shock as well as the likely mechanisms of, and potential treatment for, COVID-19 myocarditis. The various pathways of myocardial injury, including direct viral damage, macrophage activation, and lymphocytic infiltration, are outlined in detail in addition to associated pathology such as cytokine release syndrome. COVID-19 is a complex and multisystem disease process; in addition to supportive care, specific consideration should be given to the underlying mechanism of injury for each patient.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: This study was performed to determine whether strain can supplement the ability of left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (LVEF) to predict postoperative ventricular dysfunction in patients undergoing mitral valve surgery for degenerative mitral regurgitation (DMR). METHODS: From 2004 to 2017, 520 patients with an LVEF of 60% or more underwent mitral valve surgery (98% repair) for DMR. All patients had preoperative, predischarge, and follow-up (mean, 5.0 ± 3.6 years) echocardiograms. Speckle tracking was performed in 119 of 520 patients (22.9%) to determine LV strain, right ventricular free-wall strain, and left atrial longitudinal strain. Multivariate logistic and Cox regression models were used in this subgroup to evaluate associations with early postoperative LV dysfunction and medium-term overall survival, respectively. RESULTS: Median preoperative LVEF of the entire cohort was 65%. Based on predischarge echocardiogram, 449 patients (86.3%) maintained postoperative LVEF of 50% or greater. Seventy-one patients (13.7%) had a predischarge LVEF of less than 50%, 49 (9.4%) had a predischarge LVEF of 40% to 49%, and 22 (4.2% overall) had a predischarge LVEF of less than 40%. Abnormal preoperative LV, right ventricular, and left atrial strain measurements were significantly associated with the development of postoperative LV dysfunction, but preoperative hemodynamic and non-strain echo parameters did not vary enough in absolute values to be clinically useful as predictors of postoperative LV dysfunction. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative strain measurements in DMR patients were significantly associated with superior capabilities of detecting underlying LV dysfunction despite preserved preoperative LVEF. Strain analysis may serve as another marker for optimal timing of surgical intervention in DMR patients.
Assuntos
Ventrículos do Coração/fisiopatologia , Insuficiência da Valva Mitral/cirurgia , Complicações Pós-Operatórias , Volume Sistólico , Disfunção Ventricular Esquerda/etiologia , Adulto , Idoso , Seguimentos , Humanos , Modelos Logísticos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Valva Mitral/fisiopatologia , Insuficiência da Valva Mitral/fisiopatologia , Modelos Cardiovasculares , Prognóstico , Modelos de Riscos Proporcionais , Valores de Referência , Estudos RetrospectivosAssuntos
Endoscopia/métodos , Fístula Traqueoesofágica/cirurgia , Idoso , Feminino , Humanos , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a recognized treatment method for high-risk patients with aortic stenosis. TAVI is also recommended for structural valve degeneration of a biological valve prosthesis. TAVI-specific complications, such as prosthesis embolization and aortic dissection, are uncommon but potential concerns. A 73-year-old woman presented with structural valve degeneration 14 years after aortic root replacement with a bioprosthetic valved conduit. The patient underwent TAVI valve-in-valve under monitored anaesthesia care. Intraoperatively, the self-expandable prosthesis was difficult to deploy within the valved conduit and ultimately migrated distally. During the technically difficult passage of the prosthesis delivery system through the tortuous aorta, the patient started reporting symptoms suggestive of aortic dissection. An emergency computed tomography scan confirmed type B dissection. Thoracic endovascular aortic repair followed by deployment of a balloon-expandable prosthesis below the self-expandable implant was performed. Careful prosthesis selection in valve-in-valve patients after aortic root replacement is crucial for procedural success.
Assuntos
Dissecção Aórtica/cirurgia , Valva Aórtica/cirurgia , Embolização Terapêutica/métodos , Substituição da Valva Aórtica Transcateter/métodos , Idoso , Dissecção Aórtica/diagnóstico por imagem , Aorta/diagnóstico por imagem , Aorta/cirurgia , Valva Aórtica/diagnóstico por imagem , Estenose da Valva Aórtica/diagnóstico por imagem , Estenose da Valva Aórtica/cirurgia , Feminino , Próteses Valvulares Cardíacas , Humanos , Tomografia Computadorizada por Raios XRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Surgical site infection (SSI) poses a significant burden to patients and healthcare resources. Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) data identify a higher rate of SSIs for lower extremity bypass than other vascular procedures. Bundled interventions have successfully reduced SSIs in other surgical procedures. STUDY DESIGN: We evaluated our institution-specific VQI data for modifiable risk factors associated with index hospitalization SSI from January 2012 through October 2015. We implemented an evidence-based lower extremity bypass operation SSI reduction bundle (ie perioperative chlorhexidine showers and transverse groin incisions) and prospectively enrolled all patients who had lower extremity bypass procedures, with a target adherence rate of 50% per bundle component. Bundle adherence and SSI events were measured from March 2016 through August 2017. We carried out a pre-post evaluation of bundle effectiveness in reducing index hospitalization SSI. RESULTS: In the pre-intervention period, 43 of 234 (18%) patients had SSI events. The only risk factors associated with SSI (ie female sex, diabetes, overweight BMI) were not readily modifiable. In an 18-month period after introduction of our intervention, adherence rates to preoperative chlorhexidine showers, a transverse incision, and a postoperative chlorhexidine shower were 71% (52 of 73), 48% (24 of 50), and 88% (64 of 73), respectively. Compliance with all applicable bundle components was 36% (26 of 73). The SSI rate post-intervention decreased from 18% to 4% (3 of 73). Intention-to-treat multivariable analysis showed a 97% SSI risk reduction with the bundle (p = 0.002). As-treated analysis identified 85% (p = 0.02) and 62% (p = 0.047) SSI risk reductions from the preoperative and postoperative chlorhexidine showers, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this evaluation study of the effectiveness of a quality improvement intervention, SSIs were markedly decreased after implementation of our evidence-based bundle for lower extremity vascular bypass procedures.