Incidence, Management, and Outcomes of Aortic Graft Infection.

BACKGROUND: Infection complicates 1% of aortic grafts, and although uncommon, the associated morbidity and mortality are significant. We sought to determine risk factors for aortic graft infection (AGI), the long-term outcomes in patients managed both nonoperatively and via explantation. METHODS: This observational study reviewed sequential aortic grafts (thoracic or abdominal) inserted via open or endovascular means between 2000 and 2017. We used Cox proportional hazards regression analyses to compare risk factors between groups who did and did not acquire an AGI and recorded method of management, morbidity, mortality, and duration to adverse event. RESULTS: There were 883 aortic repairs, 49% were endovascular. 17.2% were for ruptured aneurysms, 1.1% for symptomatic aneurysms, 1.4% for type B dissections, and 0.5% for occlusive disease. Twelve patients presented with AGI, of which ten had their index procedure performed at our institution (AGI incidence of 1.1%). There was no difference in rates of AGI between open and endovascular repairs (0.9 vs. 1.4%, P = 0.24). AGI was significantly associated with emergency aortic repair (HR 3.63, 95% CI 1.13-11.57, P = 0.03), septic process requiring in-patient management during follow-up (HR 5.44, 95% CI 1.21-24.26, P = 0.02), and suprarenal clamping during open repair (HR 5.21, 95% CI 1.00-26.99, P = 0.05). Four patients were managed with explantation and revascularization (3 extra-anatomical bypasses) and remained well at a median follow-up of 46 months. Of the 8 patients managed nonoperatively, 4 died at an average of 13.5 days after representation, and the other 4 remained well on oral antibiotics at a median follow-up of 26.5 months. No patient suffered limb loss, and there was no change in the rate of infection over the period. CONCLUSIONS: Incidence of AGI remains low but is associated with significant mortality. Patients with aortic grafts in situ require aggressive treatment of septic foci to prevent graft infection.

Follow-up costs increase the cost disparity between endovascular and open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: This study compared the hospital and follow-up costs of patients who have undergone endovascular (EVAR) or open (OR) elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. METHODS: The records of 195 patients (EVAR, n = 55; OR, n = 140) who underwent elective aortic aneurysm repair between 1995 and 2004 were reviewed. Primary costing data were analyzed for 54 EVAR and 135 OR patients. Hospital costs were divided into preoperative, operative, and postoperative costs. Follow-up costs for EVAR patients were recorded, with a median follow-up time of 12 months. RESULTS: Mean preoperative costs were slightly higher in the EVAR group (AU $961/US $733 vs AU $869/US $663; not significant). Operative costs were significantly higher in the EVAR group (AU $16,124/US $12,297 vs AU $6077/US $4635; P < .001); this was entirely due to the increased cost of the endograft (AU $10,181/US $7,765 for EVAR vs AU $476/US $363 for OR). Postoperative costs were significantly reduced in the EVAR group (AU $4719/US $3599 vs AU $11,491/US $8,764; P < .001). Total hospital costs were significantly greater in the EVAR group (AU $21,804/US $16,631 vs AU $18,437/US $14,063; P < .001). The increase in total hospital costs was due to a significant difference in graft costs, which was not offset by reduced postoperative costs. The average follow-up cost per year after EVAR was AU $1316/US $999. At 1 year of follow-up, EVAR remained significantly more expensive than OR (AU $23,120/US $17,640 vs AU $18,510/US $14,122; P < .001); this cost discrepancy increased with a longer follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: EVAR results in significantly greater hospital costs compared with OR, despite reduced hospital and intensive care unit stays. The inclusion of follow-up costs further increases the cost disparity between EVAR and OR. Because EVAR requires lifelong surveillance and has a high rate of reintervention, follow-up costs must be included in any cost comparison of EVAR and OR. The economic cost, as well as the efficacy, of new technologies such as EVAR must be addressed before their widespread use is advocated.