Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Prosthetic Vascular Graft Infections: A Contemporary Approach to Diagnosis and Management

  • Published:
Current Infectious Disease Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Improvements in manufacturing and implantation techniques, coupled with an increasing prevalence of atherosclerosis in an aging population, have led to increased utilization of prosthetic vascular grafts. The infection rates of vascular grafts are low. However, when they do occur, high rates of morbidity and mortality can be expected. The purpose of this article is to review the published literature regarding epidemiology, risk factors, pathogenesis, and clinical manifestations of prosthetic vascular graft infections. Moreover, we provide a practical approach to the diagnosis and management of these complicated infections based on empirically grounded evidence.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as:• Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Darouiche RO. Treatment of infections associated with surgical implants. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:1422–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Antonios VS, Baddour LM. Intra-arterial device infections. Curr Infect Dis Rep. 2004;6:263–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Seeger JM, Pretus HA, Welborn MB, et al. Long-term outcome after treatment of aortic graft infection with staged extra-anatomic bypass grafting and aortic graft removal. J Vasc Surg. 2000;32:451–9. discussion 460–451.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Mussa FF, Hedayati N, Zhou W, et al. Prevention and treatment of aortic graft infection. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2007;5:305–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Quinones-Baldrich WJ, Hernandez JJ, Moore WS. Long-term results following surgical management of aortic graft infection. Arch Surg. 1991;126:507–11.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Seeger JM. Management of patients with prosthetic vascular graft infection. Am Surg. 2000;66:166–77.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Chaudhary R, Simmons RL. Pathogenesis of vascular graft infections. J Vasc Surg. 1991;13:755–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Antonios VS, Noel AA, Steckelberg JM, et al. Prosthetic vascular graft infection: a risk factor analysis using a case-control study. J Infect. 2006;53:49–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Baddour LM, Bettmann MA, Bolger AF, et al. Nonvalvular cardiovascular device-related infections. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;38:1128–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Cramton SE, Gerke C, Schnell NF, et al. The intercellular adhesion (ica) locus is present in Staphylococcus aureus and is required for biofilm formation. Infect Immun. 1999;67:5427–33.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Heilmann C, Schweitzer O, Gerke C, et al. Molecular basis of intercellular adhesion in the biofilm-forming Staphylococcus epidermidis. Mol Microbiol. 1996;20:1083–91.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Wann ER, Gurusiddappa S, Höök M. The Fibronectin-binding MSCRAMM FnbpA of Staphylococcus aureus Is a Bifunctional Protein That Also Binds to Fibrinogen. J Biol Chem. 2000;275:13863–71.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Hayes PD, Nasim A, London NJ, et al. In situ replacement of infected aortic grafts with rifampicin-bonded prostheses: the Leicester experience (1992 to 1998). J Vasc Surg. 1999;30:92–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Wilson SE. New alternatives in management of the infected vascular prosthesis. Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2001;2:171–5. discussion 175–177.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Pitsch R, Lawrence P: Natural history of graft infections. B. TJ. Armonk, NY: Futura; 1994.

  16. Bandyk DF, Berni GA, Thiele BL, Towne JB. Aortofemoral graft infection due to Staphylococcus epidermidis. Arch Surg. 1984;119:102–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Orton DF, LeVeen RF, Saigh JA, et al. Aortic prosthetic graft infections: radiologic manifestations and implications for management. Radiographics. 2000;20:977–93.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Low RN, Wall SD, Jeffrey RB, et al. Aortoenteric fistula and perigraft infection: evaluation with CT. Radiology. 1990;175:157–62.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Agarwal R, Brunelli SM, Williams K, et al. Gadolinium-based contrast agents and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2009;24:856–63.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Shahidi S, Eskil A, Lundof E, et al. Detection of abdominal Aortic graft infection: comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and indium-labeled white blood cell scanning. Ann Vasc Surg. 2007;21:586–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Lauwers P, Van den Broeck S, Carp L, et al. The use of positron emission tomography with (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose for the diagnosis of vascular graft infection. Angiology. 2008;58:717–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Keidar Z, Engel A, Hoffman A, et al. Prosthetic vascular graft infection: the role of 18F-FDG PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:1230–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. •• Bruggink JLM, Glaudemans AWJM, Saleem BR, et al. Accuracy of FDG-PET-CT in the diagnostic work-up of vascular prosthetic graft infection. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2010;40:348–54. Authors compared results of FDG-PET to CT and combined FDG-PET/CT in 15 patients. FDG-PET was found to have excellent interobserver consistency and provided a better diagnostic accuracy than CT for the diagnosis of PVGIs.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. •• Saleem BR, Meerwaldt R, Tielliu IFJ, et al. Conservative treatment of vascular prosthetic graft infection is associated with high mortality. Am J Surg. 2010;200:47–52. Authors report outcomes on 44 patients with PVGIs. Conservative treatment with antibiotics alone was found to be the only variable associated with poor outcome.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Roy D, Grove DI. Efficacy of long-term antibiotic suppressive therapy in proven or suspected infected abdominal aortic grafts. J Infect. 2000;40:184–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Baddour LM, The Infectious Diseases Society of America’s Emerging Infections Network. Long-term suppressive antimicrobial therapy for intravascular device-related infections. Am J Med Sci. 2001;322:209–12.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Younis G, Reul GJ, Krajcer Z. Combined endovascular and surgical treatment of infected carotid-carotid bypass graft. J Endovasc Ther. 2006;13:687–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Javerliat I, Goëau-Brissonnière O, Bruneval P, Coggia M. Experimental study of a new vascular graft prebonded with antibiotic: healing, toxicity, and antibiotic retention. Ann Vasc Surg. 2007;21:603–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Giacometti A, Cirioni O, Ghiselli R, et al. Polycationic peptides as prophylactic agents against methicillin-susceptible or methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis vascular graft infection. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2000;44:3306–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Huh J, Chen JC, Furman GM, et al. Local treatment of prosthetic vascular graft infection with multivesicular liposome-encapsulated amikacin. J Surg Res. 1998;74:54–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Yasim A, Gul M, Atahan E, et al. Efficacy of vancomycin, teicoplanin and fusidic acid as prophylactic agents in prevention of vascular graft infection: an experimental study in rat. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2006;31:274–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. O’Connor S, Andrew P, Batt M, Becquemin JP. A systematic review and meta-analysis of treatments for aortic graft infection. J Vasc Surg. 2006;44:38–45.e38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Chiesa R, Astore D, Frigerio S, et al. Vascular prosthetic graft infection: epidemiology, bacteriology, pathogenesis and treatment. Acta Chir Belg. 2002;102:238–47.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. • Sato S, Nitta Y, Saiki Y, et al. Enhanced perigraft angiogenesis prevents prosthetic graft infection. Ann Thorac Surg. 2008;86:1278–84. In vitro experiments in this study demonstrated that incorporation of basic fibroblast growth factor into graft material was associated with decreased number of bacterial colonies and enhanced angiogenesis.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. •• Sohail MR, Wilson WR, Baddour LM. Infections of nonvalvular cardiovascular devices. In: Mandell GL, Bennett JE, Dolin R, editors. Principles and practice of infectious diseases. Philadelphia: Churchill Livingstone/Elsevier; 2010. p. 1127–42. Comprehensive review of various aspects related to PVGIs.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

This study was supported by a Career Development Award to M.R. Sohail from the Department of Medicine, Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research.

Conflicts of interest

A. Nagpal: none; M.R. Sohail: has received honoraria from and has been a consultant for TyRx Pharma Inc.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA

    Avish Nagpal & Muhammad R. Sohail

Authors
  1. Avish Nagpal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Muhammad R. Sohail
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Muhammad R. Sohail.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nagpal, A., Sohail, M.R. Prosthetic Vascular Graft Infections: A Contemporary Approach to Diagnosis and Management. Curr Infect Dis Rep 13, 317–323 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11908-011-0191-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11908-011-0191-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation