Cryopreserved arterial allografts vs rifampin-soaked Dacron for the treatment of infected aortic and iliac grafts

Abstract

ObjectiveAortic and iliac graft infections remain complex clinical problems with high mortality and morbidity. Cryopreserved arterial allografts (CAAs) and rifampin-soaked Dacron (RSD) are options for in situ reconstruction. This study aimed to compare the safety and effectiveness of CAA vs RSD in this setting. MethodsData from patients with aortic and iliac graft infections undergoing in situ reconstruction with either CAA or RSD from January 2002 through August 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. Our primary outcomes were freedom from graft-related reintervention and freedom from reinfection. Secondary outcomes included comparing trends in the use of CAA and RSD at our institution, overall survival, perioperative mortality, and major morbidity. ResultsA total of 149 patients (80 RSD, 69 CAA) with a mean age of 68.9 and 69.1 years, respectively, were included. Endovascular stent grafts were infected in 60 patients (41 CAA group and 19 RSD group; P ≤ .01). Graft-enteric fistulas were more common in the RSD group (48.8% RSD vs 29.0% CAA; P ≤ .01). Management included complete resection of the infected graft (85.5% CAA vs 57.5% RSD; P ≤ .01) and aortic reconstructions were covered in omentum in 57 (87.7%) and 63 (84.0%) patients in the CAA and RSD group, respectively (P = .55). Thirty-day/in-hospital mortality was similar between the groups (7.5% RSD vs 7.2% CAA; P = 1.00). One early graft-related death occurred on postoperative day 4 due to CAA rupture and hemorrhagic shock. Median follow-up was 20.5 and 21.5 months in the CAA and RSD groups, respectively. Overall post-discharge survival at 5 years was similar, at 59.2% in the RSD group and 59.0% in the CAA group (P = .80). Freedom from graft-related reintervention at 1 and 5 years was 81.3% and 66.2% (CAA) vs 95.6% and 92.5% (RSD; P = .02). Indications for reintervention in the CAA group included stenosis (n = 5), pseudoaneurysm (n = 2), reinfection (n = 2), occlusion (n = 2), rupture (n = 1), and graft-limb kinking (n = 1). In the RSD group, indications included reinfection (n = 3), occlusion (n = 1), endoleak (n = 1), omental coverage (n = 1), and rupture (n = 1). Freedom from reinfection at 1 and 5 years was 98.3% and 94.9% (CAA) vs 92.5% and 87.2% (RSD; P = .11). Two (2.9%) and three patients (3.8%) in the CAA and RSD group, respectively, required graft explantation due to reinfection. ConclusionsAorto-iliac graft infections can be managed safely with either CAA or RSD in selected patients for in situ reconstruction. However, reintervention was more common with CAA use. Freedom from reinfection rates in the RSD group was lower, but this was not statistically significant. Conduit choice is associated with long-term surveillance needs and reinterventions.