Percutaneous Drainage for Aortic Graft Infection Post-aneurysm Repair: A Viable Option?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Non-operative management of aortic graft infection is usually only considered in a palliative context. We describe the safety, efficacy, and clinical outcomes of percutaneous drainage of aortic graft infections (AGI) following either open or endovascular repair of aneurysmal disease. Methods Twelve consecutive patients (11 males, 1 female, mean age 72.7 ± 10.3 years, age range 52-88 years) between January 2010-July 2020 who underwent percutaneous drain insertion in either an infected aortic sac or periaortic abscess cavity following endovascular or open surgical graft repair were identified. Patient and procedural characteristics as well as clinical outcomes were determined. Results Of the 12 patients who underwent percutaneous drain insertion, five (41.7%) had undergone open abdominal aneurysm repair, one (8.3%) open thoracoabdominal aneurysmal repair, and six (50%) endovascular abdominal aneurysm repairs. Drain size ranged from 10-20 French. All were inserted under ultrasound (US), computed tomography (CT), and/or fluoroscopic guidance. Median duration of drain placement was 55.2 days (range 3-174). Five patients (41.7%) had the drain in place as a stabilizing bridge until or after definitive surgical explantation and aortic reconstruction. Seven patients (58.3%) were managed with drain placement and antibiotic therapy without surgical intervention. Six (50%) were alive at the most recent time of follow-up (median, 732 days, range 166-1650 days). Three patients (25%) died during follow-up with causes including erosion of aortic reconstruction into sigmoid colon, unrelated chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation, and severe clostridium difficile colitis and pseudomonal pneumonia (median 1244 days, range 992-1597 days). Three (25%) patients were lost to follow-up. No drain-related complications were noted. Conclusion Percutaneous drainage of AGI following endovascular or open aneurysm repair is a safe and viable management option either as a temporizing measure as a bridge to surgical graft explantation or as a non-surgical therapy for long term management.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".