ORIGINAL ARTICLE
EndoVAC hybrid therapy for salvage of patients with infected femoral artery reconstructions
1
Department of Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden
2
Vascular Center, Department of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden
3
Department of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, University Hospital Münster, Münster, Germany
Publication date: 2019-06-28
Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther 2019;51(2):112-120
KEYWORDS
negative pressure wound therapysurgical site infectionvacuum-assisted closureendovascular surgeryEndoVACinfected vascular reconstruction
ABSTRACT
Background:
EndoVAC hybrid therapy for infected femoral artery reconstructions consists of endovascular relining with a stent graft, surgical debridement and vacuum-assisted wound closure (VAC), and may be considered as a bailout procedure. The aim of this study was to analyze differences in risk factors of patients receiving EndoVAC compared to standard VAC therapy for perivascular infected femoral artery reconstructions, and to describe the technique, complications and outcome of EndoVAC therapy.
Material and methods:
Retrospective analysis of 183 patients receiving VAC or EndoVAC therapy for perivascular infections in the groin from January 2004 to December 2017 was performed. Failure of wound treatment was defined as a wound not healed within four months, visible graft material or native artery after one month, bleeding from the wound leading to discontinuation of treatment, death or amputation due to groin infection.
Results:
The EndoVAC patients (n = 13) more often had ischemic heart disease (P = 0.008), more late wound infections after index operation (P < 0.001), had more often undergone previous ipsilateral groin incisions (P = 0.006) and presented more often with hemorrhage/femoral pseudoaneurysm (P < 0.001), compared to the standard VAC patients (n = 170). Major complications after EndoVAC therapy were stent graft occlusion (n = 3), major hemorrhage from the repaired reconstruction (n = 2), major amputation within six months (n = 4) and death due to infected reconstruction (n = 2). Ten (77%) groins healed, eight without major complications.
Conclusion:
EndoVAC therapy appears to be a life-saving minimally invasive treatment option in surgical high-risk patients with infected femoral artery reconstruction and disrupted vascular anastomosis.
EndoVAC hybrid therapy for infected femoral artery reconstructions consists of endovascular relining with a stent graft, surgical debridement and vacuum-assisted wound closure (VAC), and may be considered as a bailout procedure. The aim of this study was to analyze differences in risk factors of patients receiving EndoVAC compared to standard VAC therapy for perivascular infected femoral artery reconstructions, and to describe the technique, complications and outcome of EndoVAC therapy.
Material and methods:
Retrospective analysis of 183 patients receiving VAC or EndoVAC therapy for perivascular infections in the groin from January 2004 to December 2017 was performed. Failure of wound treatment was defined as a wound not healed within four months, visible graft material or native artery after one month, bleeding from the wound leading to discontinuation of treatment, death or amputation due to groin infection.
Results:
The EndoVAC patients (n = 13) more often had ischemic heart disease (P = 0.008), more late wound infections after index operation (P < 0.001), had more often undergone previous ipsilateral groin incisions (P = 0.006) and presented more often with hemorrhage/femoral pseudoaneurysm (P < 0.001), compared to the standard VAC patients (n = 170). Major complications after EndoVAC therapy were stent graft occlusion (n = 3), major hemorrhage from the repaired reconstruction (n = 2), major amputation within six months (n = 4) and death due to infected reconstruction (n = 2). Ten (77%) groins healed, eight without major complications.
Conclusion:
EndoVAC therapy appears to be a life-saving minimally invasive treatment option in surgical high-risk patients with infected femoral artery reconstruction and disrupted vascular anastomosis.
REFERENCES (28)
1.
Szilagyi DE, Smith RF, Elliot JP, Vrandécic MP. Infection in arterial reconstruction with synthetic grafts. Ann Surg 1972; 176: 321-333. doi: 10.1097/00000658-197209000-00008.
2.
Chen SZ, Li J, Li XY, Xu LS. Effects of vacuum-assisted closure on wound microcirculation: an experimental study. Asian J Surg 2005; 28: 211-217. doi: 10.1016/S1015-9584(09)60346-8.
3.
Borgquist O, Ingemansson R, Malmsjo M. The influence of low and high pressure levels during negative-pressure wound therapy on wound contraction and fluid evacuation. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 127: 551-559. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181fed52a.
4.
Acosta S, Bjorck M, Wanhainen A. Negative-pressure wound therapy for prevention and treatment of surgical-site infections after vascular surgery. Br J Surg 2017; 104: e75-e84. doi: 10.1002/bjs.10403.
5.
Mayer D, Hasse B, Koelliker J, et al. Long-term results of vascular graft and artery preserving treatment with negative pressure wound therapy in Szilagyi grade III infections juastify a paradigm shift. Ann Surg 2011; 254: 754-759. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3182365864.
6.
Monsen C, Wann-Hansson C, Wictorsson C, Acosta S. Vacuum-assisted wound closure versus alginate for the treatment of deep perivascular wound infections in the groin after vascular surgery. J Vasc Surg 2014; 59: 145-151. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2013.06.073.
7.
Dumville JC, Owens GL, Crosbie EJ, Peineman F, Liu Z. Negative pressure wound therapy for treating surgical wounds by secondary intention. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; 6: CD011278. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011278.pub2.
8.
Kragsterman B, Björck M, Wanhainen A. EndoVAC, a novel hybrid technique to treat infected vascular reconstructions with an endograft and vacuum-assisted wound closure. J Endovasc Ther 2011; 18: 666-673. doi: 10.1583/11-3465.1.
9.
Schulman S, Angeras U, Bergqvist D, Eriksson B, Lassen MR, Fisher W. Definition of major bleeding in clinical investigations of antihemostatic medicinal products in surgical patients. J Thromb Haemost 2010; 8: 202-204. doi: 10.1111/j.1538-7836.2009.03678.x.
10.
Dosluoglu HH, Loghmanee C, Lall P, Cherr GS, Harris LM, Dryjski ML. Management of early (<30 day) vascular groin infections using vacuum-assisted closure alone without muscle flap coverage in a consecutive patient series. J Vasc Surg 2010; 51: 1160-1166. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2009.11.053.
11.
Calligaro KD, Veith FJ, Schwartz ML, et al. Selective preservation of infected prosthetic arterial grafts. Analysis of a 20-year experience with 120 extracavitary-infected grafts. Ann Surg 1994; 220: 461-471. doi: 10.1097/00000658-199410000-00005.
12.
Siracuse JJ, Nandivada P, Giles KA, et al. Prosthetic graft infections involving the femoral artery. J Vasc Surg 2013; 57: 700-705. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2012.09.049.
13.
Thorbjörnsen K, Djavani Gidlund K, Björck M, Kragsterman B, Wanhainen A. Long-term outcomes after EndoVAC hybrid repair of infected vascular reconstructions. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2016; 51: 724-732. doi: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2016.01.011.
14.
Inui T, Bandyk DF. Vascular surgical site infection: risk factors and preventive measures. Semin Vasc Surg 2015; 28: 201-207. doi: 10.1053/j.semvascsurg.2016.02.002.
15.
Turtiainen J, Hakala T. Surgical wound infections after peripheral vascular surgery. Scand J Surg 2012; 103: 226-231. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/145749....
16.
Monsen C, Acosta S, Mani K, Wann-Hansson C. A randomised study of NPWT closure versus alginate dressings in peri-vascular groin infections: quality of life, pain and cost. J Wound Care 2015; 24: 252-256. doi: 10.12968/jowc.2015.24.6.252.
17.
Gupta PK, Ramanan B, Engelbert TL, Tefera G, Hoch JR, Kent KC. A comparison of open surgery versus endovascular repair of unstable ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms. J Vasc Surg 2014; 60: 1439-1445. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2014.06.122.
18.
Aziz F, Bohr T, Lehman EB. Wound disruption after lower extremity bypass surgery is a predictor of subsequent development of wound infection. Ann Vasc Surg 2017; 43: 176-187. doi: 10.1016/j.avsg. 2016.10.065.
19.
Derksen WJ, Verhoeven BA, van der Mortel RH, Moll FL, de Vries JP. Risk factors for surgical-site infection following common femoral artery endarterectomy. Vasc Endovasc Surg 2009; 43: 69-75. doi: 10.1177/1538574408323502.
20.
Lorentzen JE, Nielsen OM, Arendrup H, et al. Vascular graft infection: an analysis of sixty-two graft infections in 2411 consecutively implanted synthetic grafts. Surgery 1985; 98: 81-86.
21.
Aziz F, Lehman EB, Reed AB. Unplanned return to operating room after lower extremity arterial bypass is an independent predictor for hospital readmission. J Vasc Surg 2016; 63: 678-687. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs. 2015.09.015.
22.
Geary KJ, Tomkiewicz ZM, Harrison HN, et al. Differential effects of a gram-negative and a gram-positive infection on autogenous and prosthetic grafts. J Vasc Surg 1990; 11: 339-345.
23.
Dryjski M, Doslouglu H. Commentary: A new approach to treating infected vascular reconstructions: The hybrid EndoVAC technique. J Endovasc Ther 2011; 18: 674-675.
24.
Moulakakis KG, Alexion VG, Sfyroeras GS, et al. Endovascular management of infected iliofemoral pseudoaneurysms – a systematic review. Vasa 2017; 46: 5-9. doi: 10.1024/0301-1526/a000572.
25.
Armstrong PA, Back MR, Bandyk DF, Johnson BL, Shames ML. Selective application of sartorius muscle flaps and aggressive staged surgical debridement can influence long-term outcomes of complex prosthetic graft infections. J Vasc Surg 2007; 46: 71-78. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2007.02.058.
26.
Illig KA, Alkon JE, Smith A, et al. Rotational muscle flap closure for acute groin wound infections following vascular surgery. Ann Vasc Surg 2004; 18: 661-668. doi: 10.1007/s10016-004-0105-7.
27.
Scalise A, Bianchi A, Tartaglione C, et al. Microenvironment and microbiology of skin wounds: the role of bacterial biofilms and related factors. Semin Vasc Surg 2015; 28: 151-159. doi: 10.1053/j.semvascsurg.2016.01.003.
28.
Yang C, Goss SG, Alcantara S, Schultz G, Lantis Li JC. Effect of negative pressure wound therapy with instillation on bioburden in chronically infected wounds. Wounds 2017; 29: 240-246.
| eISSN: | 1731-2531 |
| ISSN: | 1642-5758 |
