Performance of the BioIntegral Bovine Pericardial Graft in Vascular Infections:VASCular No-REact Graft Against INfection Study

Background: Vascular graft and endograft infections (VGEI) and native vessel infections (NVI) remain considerable challenges in vascular surgery, leading to high mortality and morbidity rates. Although in situ reconstruction is the preferred treatment, the material of choice is still a source of debate. Autologous veins are considered the first choice; however, xenografts may be an acceptable alternative. The performance of a biomodified bovine pericardial graft is assessed when implemented in an infected vascular area. Methods: This is a prospective multicenter cohort study. Patients who underwent reconstruction for VGEI or NVI with a biomodified bovine pericardial bifurcated or straight tube graft were included from December 2017 until June 2021. The primary outcome measure was reinfection at mid-term follow-up. Secondary outcome measures included mortality, patency, and amputation rate. Results: Thirty-four patients with vascular infections were included, of which 23 (68%) had an infected Dacron prosthesis after primary open repair and 8 (24%) had an infected endovascular graft. The remaining 3 (9%) had infected native vessels. At secondary repair, 3 (7%) patients had an in situ aortic tube reconstruction, 29 (66%) had an aortic bifurcated reconstruction, and 2 (5%) had an iliac-femoral reconstruction. At 1-year follow-up after the BioIntegral bovine pericardial graft reconstruction, the reinfection rate was 9%. The 1-year infection-related and procedure-related mortality rate was 16%. The occlusion rate was 6% and in total 3 patients underwent a lower limb amputation during the 1-year follow-up period. Conclusions: In situ reconstruction as treatment of (endo)graft and native vessel infections remains a challenge and reinfection looms as a potential consequence. In cases where time is of essence or when autologous venous repair is not feasible, a swift available solution is needed. The BioIntegral biomodified bovine pericardial graft may be an option as it shows reasonable results in terms of reinfection, in aortic tube and bifurcated grafts.</p

Focal Aortic Dissection With Significant Stenosis: A Rare Long Term Complication After TEVAR for Blunt Traumatic Aortic Injury in an Adolescent Patient

Background: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in children and adolescents after blunt traumatic aortic injury (BTAI) is being performed increasingly despite no endovascular graft being approved for TEVAR in this population. The smaller diameter of the aorta and access vessels and steeper angle of the aortic arch pose specific challenges for TEVAR in this population. Moreover, data are lacking regarding medium to long term complications. This case presents an adolescent patient who underwent TEVAR for BTAI and suffered a focal aortic dissection several months later. Report: The patient initially presented after a motor vehicle accident and underwent an uncomplicated TEVAR procedure with a 28 mm diameter stent graft (the smallest device available at the time) for Grade III traumatic aortic dissection; the native aortic diameter was 15 mm. The diameter mismatch was accepted due to the lifesaving nature of the procedure. More than 7 months later the patient presented to the emergency department after not being able to urinate for several days and experiencing pain, tingling, and weakness in both legs. Blood samples showed a severe acute kidney injury and computed tomography angiography showed significant aortic stenosis in the distal part of the stent graft, probably caused by a focal dissection. The stenosis and dissection were successfully treated using a Palmaz stent, after which his renal function and extremity complaints recovered. Conclusion: The focal dissection was probably caused by stress on the aortic wall due to the aorta–stent graft diameter mismatch. This case demonstrates that complications after TEVAR in adolescents can arise months after the initial procedure and underscores the need for continued vigilance, especially in cases with an aorta–stent graft mismatch. The threshold for additional imaging and consultation by a vascular surgeon should be low