Early and Late Results of Contemporary Management of 37 Secondary Aortoenteric Fistulae

Abstract

Purpose

Evaluate the results of the two modalities used for the treatment of Secondary Aorto-Enteric Fistula (SAEF): In situ Reconstruction (ISR) and Extra-Anatomic Reconstruction (EAR). The primary endpoints of this study were early standard 30-day mortality and reinfection (RI). Secondary endpoints were perioperative morbidity, late mortality, primary graft patency, and major amputation rates.

Material & method

Diagnosis of SAEF was based on clinical examination and the results of pre-operative duplex or CT scans. Surgical management was performed according to local protocols at the participating institutions:

– Elective surgery: ISR or staged EAR

– Emergency surgery: aortic clamping followed by ISR or EAR – Selected high-risk patients: endovascular repair.

Statistical analyses were performed using the actuarial method. Univariate analysis was used for analysis of categorical variables, and multivariate analysis was performed with a Cox proportional hazard regression.

Results

A total of 37 patients were included in this retrospective multicentre study. Mean follow-up was 41 months. The majority of the patients (20, 54%) presented acutely. EAR was performed in 9 patients (24%), ISR in 25 (68%), and 3 patients underwent endovascular repair. Bacteriological cultures were negative in 3 patients (9%). The most frequent organisms identified were Candida species and Escherichia coli.

The 30-day mortality was 43% (16 patients). Patient age (>75 years) was the sole predictive factor associated with operative mortality (p = 0.02); pre-operative shock was not statistically significant (p = 0.08). There were 2 graft thromboses and 1 femoral amputation. Primary graft patency was respectively 89% at 1 year and 86% at 5 years; limb salvage rates were 100% at 1 and 5 years and 86% at 6 years, with no difference between ISR and EAR. RI occurred after 9.3 ± 13 months in 8 of 17 surviving patients and was fatal in all cases. For all surviving patients, the RI rate at 1 and 2 years was 24% and 41% respectively. There was no significant difference in the rate of RI after ISR or EAR.

Conclusion

EAR does not appear to be superior to ISR. The risk of RI increased with the length of follow-up, irrespective of the treatment modality. Life-long surveillance is mandatory. Our results with endovascular sealing of SAEF should be considered a bridge to open repair.