Differences in early versus late extracavitary arterial graft infections.

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.