Annals of Vascular Surgery

, Volume 9, Issue 4, pp 378–384 | Cite as

Surgical management of infected PTFE hemodialysis grafts: analysis of a 15-year experience

  • Marwan R. Tabbara
  • Patrick J. O'Hara
  • Norman R. Hertzer
  • Leonard P. Krajewski
  • Edwin G. Beven
Original Articles
  • 6 Downloads

Abstract

The records of 52 consecutive patients who underwent surgical treatment for 57 episodes of hemodialysis graft infection (HGI) from 1977 to 1993 were reviewed to determine the mortality and morbidity associated with this complication and to clarify guidelines for its management. The study group consisted of 35 women and 17 men whose mean age was 57 years at initial graft placement. Thirty-three (58%) HGIs involved straight grafts in the upper arm, 12 (21%) straight forearm grafts, 11 (19%) loop forearm grafts, and 1 (2%) a loop groin fistula. All of these grafts were constructed with polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE). All 57 cases of HGI showed at least local evidence and 41 (72%) caused systemic symptoms. Thirty-seven (65%) HGIs were associated with positive blood cultures. The predominant infecting organism wasStaphylococcus,which was isolated alone or in combination with other organisms from 40 (70%) graft or wound sites. Seventy-eight percent (31/40) of the staphylococcal infections involvedStaphylococcus aureus.The median time from graft implantation to diagnosis of HGI was 7 months (mean 16 months, range 0 to 77 months) and from diagnosis to surgical treatment, 4 days (mean 6 days, range 0 to 26 days). Initial surgical management consisted of complete excision of all prosthetic material in 43 (75%) cases and partial excision in 14. The 30-day mortality rate following the last operation for the treatment of HGI was 12% (6/52) and was not significantly increased by incomplete excision. Six (86%) of the early deaths were related to sepsis and each of these patients had positive blood cultures. None of the infected grafts could be salvaged without removal of at least part of the original graft. None of the 43 complete excisions was complicated by recurrent infection at the same time, whereas this complication did occur following six (43%) of the 14 procedures during which residual prosthetic material was left in place (p= 0.00008, Fisher's exact test). Prosthetic HGI is a serious complication that is optimally treated by excision of all infected PTFE. Complete removal of synthetic material offers a significantly reduced risk of recurrent graft sepsis at the same site.

Keywords

PTFE Positive Blood Culture Complete Excision Prosthetic Material Staphylococcal Infection 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    U.S. Renal Data System, 1991 Annual Data Report, The National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Bethesda, Md., August 1991. V. Survival probabilities and causes of death. Am J Kidney Dis 1991;18:49–60.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Connolly JE, Brownell DA, Levine EF, et al. Complications of renal dialysis access procedures. Arch Surg 1984;119:1325–1328.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hinsdale J, Lipkowitz G, Hoover E. Vascular access for hemodialysis in the elderly: Results and perspectives in a geriatric population. Dialysis Transplant 1985;14:560–565.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zibari GB, Rohr MS, Landreneau MD, et al. Complications from permanent hemodialysis vascular access. Surgery 1988; 104:681–688.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tellis VA, Weiss P, Matas AJ, et al. Skin-flap coverage of polytetrafluoroethylene vascular access graft exposed by previous infection. Surgery 1988;103:118–121.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bhat D, Tellis V, Kohlberg W, et al. Management of sepsis involving expanded polytetrafluoroethylene grafts for hemodialysis access. Surgery 1980;87:445–450.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Okadome K, Watanabe T, Kina M, et al. Skin sliding closure technique is effective for management of infected prosthesis in cases of arterial reconstruction with synthetic grafts. Jpn J Surg 1982;12:349–355.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Elliot M, Bazzaniga A, Thomas J, et al. Use of expanded polytetrafluoroethylene grafts for vascular access in hemodialysis: Laboratory and clinical evaluation. Am Surg 1977;43:455–459.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Raju S. PTFE grafts for hemodialysis access. Ann Surg 1987;206:666–673.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gifford RR. Management of tunnel infections of dialysis polytetrafluoroethylene grafts. J Vasc Surg 1985;2:854–858.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Padberg FJ, Lee BC, Curl GR. Hemoaccess site infection. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1992;174:103–108.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Corry RJ, Patel NP, West JC. Surgical management of complications of vascular access for hemodialysis. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1980;151:49–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    O'Hara P, Hertzer N, Beven E, et al. Surgical management of infected abdominal aortic grafts: Review of a 25-year experience. J Vasc Surg 1986;3:725–731.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Baker L, Johnson J, Goldfarb D. Expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) subcutaneous arteriovenous conduit: An improved vascular access for chronic hemodialysis. Trans Am Soc Artif Intern Organs 1976;22:382–387.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    McMullen K, Hayes D, Hussey JL, et al. Salvage of hemodialysis access in infected arteriovenous fistulas. Arch Surg 1991;126:1303–1305.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mayers JD, Markell MS, Cohen LS, et al. Vascular access surgery for maintenance hemodialysis. Variables in hospital stay. ASAIO Trans 1992;38:113–115.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Iglehart J. Health Policy Report: The American Health Care System, The End Stage Renal Disease Program. N Engl J Med 1993;328:366–371.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kieffer E, Bahnini A, Koskas F, et al. In situ allograft replacement of infected infrarenal aortic prosthetic grafts: Results in forty-three patients. J Vasc Surg 1993;17:349–356.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yeager RA, Porter JM. Basic data underlying clinical decision making in vascular surgery: Arterial and prosthetic graft infection. Ann Vasc Surg 1992;6:485–491.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Francois F, Thévenet A. Conservative treatment of prosthetic aortic graft infection with irrigation. Ann Vasc Surg 1991;5:199–201.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Calligaro KD, Veith FJ. Clinical review: Diagnosis and management of infected prosthetic aortic grafts. Surgery 1991; 110:805–813.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bandyk DF, Bergamini TM, Kinney EV, et al. In situ replacement of vascular prostheses infected by bacterial biofilms. J Vasc Surg 1991;13:575–583.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kirami N, Tuazon C, Murray H, et al.Staphylocaccus aureus carriage rate of patients receiving long-term hemodialysis. Arch Intern Med 1978;138:1657–1659.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bunt T. Synthetic vascular graft infections. I. Graft infections. Surgery 1983;93:733–746.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fivush BA, Bock GH, Guzzetta PC, et al. Vancomycin prevents polytetrafluoroethylene graft infections in pediatric patients receiving chronic hemodialysis. Am J Kidney Dis 1985;5:120–123.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Annals of Vascular Surgery Inc. 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marwan R. Tabbara
    • 1
  • Patrick J. O'Hara
    • 1
  • Norman R. Hertzer
    • 1
  • Leonard P. Krajewski
    • 1
  • Edwin G. Beven
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Vascular SurgeryThe Cleveland Clinic FoundationCleveland

Personalised recommendations