Periprosthetic joint infection increases the risk of one-year mortality.

BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic joint infection continues to potentially complicate an otherwise successful joint replacement. The treatment of this infection often requires multiple surgical procedures associated with increased complications and morbidity. This study examined the relationship between periprosthetic joint infection and mortality and aimed to determine the effect of periprosthetic joint infection on mortality and any predictors of mortality in patients with periprosthetic joint infection. METHODS: Four hundred and thirty-six patients with at least one surgical intervention secondary to confirmed periprosthetic joint infection were compared with 2342 patients undergoing revision arthroplasty for aseptic failure. The incidence of mortality at thirty days, ninety days, one year, two years, and five years after surgery was assessed. Multivariate analysis was used to assess periprosthetic joint infection as an independent predictor of mortality. In the periprosthetic joint infection population, variables investigated as potential risk factors for mortality were evaluated. RESULTS: Mortality was significantly greater (p \u3c 0.001) in patients with periprosthetic joint infection compared with those undergoing aseptic revision arthroplasty at ninety days (3.7% versus 0.8%), one year (10.6% versus 2.0%), two years (13.6% versus 3.9%), and five years (25.9% versus 12.9%). After controlling for age, sex, ethnicity, number of procedures, involved joint, body mass index, and Charlson Comorbidity Index, revision arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection was associated with a fivefold increase in mortality compared with revision arthroplasty for aseptic failures. In the periprosthetic joint infection population, independent predictors of mortality included increasing age, higher Charlson Comorbidity Index, history of stroke, polymicrobial infections, and cardiac disease. CONCLUSIONS: Although it is well known that periprosthetic joint infection is a devastating complication that severely limits joint function and is consistently difficult to eradicate, surgeons must also be cognizant of the systemic impact of periprosthetic joint infection and its major influence on fatal outcome in patients

Aggressive venous thromboembolism prophylaxis reduces VTE events in vascular surgery patients.

OBJECTIVE: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a potentially preventable complication following surgery. There is variation with regard to the most effective mode of prophylaxis. We sought to determine if an aggressive approach to VTE prophylaxis would reduce VTE rates on the inpatient vascular surgical service. METHODS: Vascular inpatients from a single institution from July 2010 to March 2013 were included in the analysis. A protocol for VTE prophylaxis was implemented on the inpatient vascular surgical service in November 2011. This included subcutaneous (SQ) heparin initiation within 24 h of admission unless deemed inappropriate by the attending, as well as intermittent compression devices (ICD) and compression stockings (CS). The rate of VTE was compared prior to and following the intervention. Patients were compared using AHRQ comorbidity categories, APR-DRG severity of illness, insurance status, and principle procedure. T-tests were used to compare continuous variables and chi-square analysis used to compare categorical variables. RESULTS: There were 1483 vascular patients in the pre-intervention group and 1652 patients in the post-intervention group. The rate of pharmacologic prophylaxis was 52.57% pre-intervention compared to 69.33% post-intervention (p \u3c 0.001). The rate of pharmacologic or mechanical prophylaxis was 91.76% pre-intervention compared to 93.10% post-intervention (p = 0.54). The overall rate of VTE prior to the intervention was 1.49% compared to after intervention which was 0.38% (p = 0.033). The DVT rate prior to intervention was 1.09% vs 0.189% after intervention (p = 0.0214). The rate of pulmonary embolism trended towards a significant reduction with the intervention (0.681% vs 0.189%, p = 0.095). There were no statistically significant differences in patient groups based on gender, comorbidity category, severity of illness, or insurance type. CONCLUSIONS: The overall rate of VTE was reduced by 75% after the initiation of a standard protocol for pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis. These findings justify an aggressive approach to VTE prophylaxis in vascular surgery patients