Abstract
Background There is still no guideline or consensus on the treatment of aortic graft infection.
This study reported and compared conservative and surgical treatment and different
surgical methods for aortic graft infection.
Methods Data from aortic graft infections treated at our institution between February 2017
and June 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. Clinical data and surgical approaches
were evaluated.
Results This article retrospectively analyzed the treatment and prognosis of 48 patients
(43 males) with aortic graft infection. The patients were divided into conservative
treatment group (n = 15) and surgical treatment group (n = 33). During follow-up, the mortality rate of the conservative treatment group was
significantly higher than that of the surgical treatment group (p < 0.05). The survival curve also showed that the survival time of the surgical treatment
group was longer than that of the conservative treatment group (p < 0.05). The surgical treatment group included local treatment (n = 5), in situ replacement (n = 8), and bypass surgery (n = 20) groups. There was no significant difference in the mortality rate at 1 month
or final follow-up among the local treatment, in situ replacement, and bypass surgery
groups.
Conclusion Surgical treatment is the optimal option for treating aortic graft infections compared
to conservative treatment.
Keywords
aortic graft infection - surgical treatment - conservative treatment - mortality
