Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2020 Jan 31:2020:9574734.
doi: 10.1155/2020/9574734. eCollection 2020.

Systematic Review and Meta: Analysis of Aortic Graft Infections following Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair

O S Niaz  1 , A Rao  1 , D Carey  1 , J R Refson  1 , A Abidia  1 , P Somaiya  1
Affiliations
Review

Systematic Review and Meta: Analysis of Aortic Graft Infections following Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair

O S Niaz et al. Int J Vasc Med. .

Abstract

Introduction. Aortic graft infection (AGI) is a rare complication following AAA repair and is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Management is variable, and there are no evidence-based guidelines. The aim of this study was to systematically review and analyse management options for AGI.

Methods: Data was collected between July and August 2018. A full HDAS search was conducted on the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PUBMED. Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5 software.

Results: 1,365 patient outcomes were assessed (10 cohort studies and 12 comparative studies). The most common treatment was in situ replacement of the graft (ISR) followed by extra-anatomical replacement (EAR). Various grafts were used for ISR, such as fresh/cryopreserved allograft, venous graft, and prosthetic grafts. No graft material was shown to be superior. Axillobifemoral graft was the commonest type of EAR used. In the majority of cohort studies, ISR was the main treatment for AGI. There was no significant difference in the overall mortality rate (ISR n = 70/176 vs. EAR n = 70/176 vs. EAR P = 0.87). Graft occlusion rate was significantly lower in the ISR group vs. the EAR group (n = 70/176 vs. EAR n = 70/176 vs. EAR P = 0.87). Graft occlusion rate was significantly lower in the ISR group vs. the EAR group (n = 70/176 vs. EAR n = 70/176 vs. EAR P = 0.87). Graft occlusion rate was significantly lower in the ISR group vs. the EAR group (Discussion. In situ replacement is the preferred method of treatment as it had lower rates of occlusion. Further strong evidence is required, such as a multicentre trial to establish a management pathway for the condition.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA diagram for the selection of studies included in the review.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Forrest plot for overall mortality rate between ISR and EAR.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Aggarwal S., Qumar A., Sharma V., Sharma A. Abdominal aortic aneurysm: a comprehensive review. Experimental and Clinical Cardiology. 2011;16(1):11–15. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lilja F., Wanhainen A., Mani K. Changes in abdominal aortic aneurysm epidemiology. Journal of cardiovascular surgery. 2017;58(6):848–853. doi: 10.23736/S0021-9509.17.10064-9. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Health Quality Improvement Project (HQIP) August 2018, https://www.vsqip.org.uk/reports/2017-annual-report/".
    1. Seeger J. Management of patients with prosthetic vascular graft infection. The American Surgeon. 2000;66(2):166–177. - PubMed
    1. Fitzgerald S., Kelly C., Humphreys H. Diagnosis and treatment of prosthetic aortic graft infections: confusion and inconsistency in the absence of evidence or consensus. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. 2005;56(6):996–999. doi: 10.1093/jac/dki382. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources