Management of infected prosthetic dialysis arteriovenous grafts.
BACKGROUND
Hemodialysis access is one of the most common vascular procedures that is performed by vascular and general surgeons. Prosthetic arteriovenous graft (AVG) infections pose potentially life-threatening septic and bleeding complications, as well as loss of dialysis access. Strategies employed to preserve some grafts, prevent morbidity in those with major infections, and maintain access are presented.


METHODS
Between July 1, 1995 and August 1, 2002, 1441 AVG procedures were performed at a single institution. Fifty-one (3.5%) prosthetic AVG infections in 45 patients were identified. Twenty-seven graft infections occurred at a prior incision for placement or revision of a graft. The other 24 infections were located within the body of the graft, and 14 of these were documented to be at a recent puncture site for hemodialysis access. The most common presentation (47% [24/51]) was an exposed graft or a draining sinus tract. Management included total graft excision (TGE) when patients presented with sepsis or the entire graft was bathed in pus; subtotal graft excision (SGE), when all of the graft was removed except an oversewn small cuff of prosthetic material on an underlying patent artery; and partial graft excision (PGE), when only a limited infected portion of the graft was removed and a new graft was rerouted through adjacent sterile tissue to maintain patency of the original graft.


RESULTS
None of the 45 patients died or developed hand ischemia. A uniformly successful outcome was achieved in all patients who were treated with TGE (13/13: 8 vein patches, 4 primary closure, 1 arterial ligation) or SGE (15/15). However, these treatments necessitated placement of a central venous catheter for temporary dialysis access and a new AVG later. All of these 28 wounds healed by secondary intention, including all 15 cases in which an oversewn cuff of prosthetic material remained. Graft patency and wound healing were achieved in 74% (17/23) of infections treated with PGE, and placement of a temporary dialysis access catheter and new AVG were avoided. The 6 failures of PGE ultimately required TGE because of nonhealing wounds, but there were no acute hemorrhagic or septic events.


CONCLUSIONS
Systemic sepsis caused by prosthetic AVG infections mandates TGE. SGE and PGE can be safely employed in selected patients with infected prosthetic AVGs. SGE maintains patency of the underlying artery and avoids a difficult and time-consuming dissection. PGE offers the advantage of minimizing extensive dissection of well-incorporated uninfected graft segments and allows continued dialysis access at the incorporated portion of the graft.
Ryan
Sean V
SV
Section of Vascular Surgery, Pennsylvania Hospital, 700 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106, USA.
Calligaro
Keith D
KD
Scharff
Josh
J
Dougherty
Matthew J
MJ
D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D001166:Arteriovenous Shunt, Surgical; D001807:Blood Vessel Prosthesis / Q000009:adverse effects*; D019917:Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation; D006801:Humans; D008875:Middle Aged; D011138:Polytetrafluoroethylene; D016459:Prosthesis-Related Infections / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000601:surgery*; D006435:Renal Dialysis
D011138:Polytetrafluoroethylene