Frequency and Risk Factors for Sepsis Resulting from Neuroendovascular Treatment

Abstract

Objective: Endovascular treatments are minimally invasive and rarely cause complicating infections. Although cases complicated by device infections have been reported, we could not find any studies evaluating infections following neuroendovascular treatment in particular. Therefore, we assessed the frequency of sepsis and other associated risk factors.

Methods: From September 2006 to May 2008, we investigated 256 prospective neuroendovascular treatment cases at our facility. We examined the frequency of sepsis and other associated risk factors as well as organisms and the early detection tests such as various cultures and serodiagnoses.

Results: The rate of sepsis due to complications was 8.6% in the aggregate and 5.7% in 193 procedures without a central venous catheter and hemodialysis. All sepsis cases were successfully treated with antibiotics. However, in 2 cases, the patients developed methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections, which were intractable. The highest risk factors for sepsis were a large sheath size [>7 F; OR = 5.03; P = 0.01; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.29–19.47] and meningioma embolization (OR = 13.25; P = 0.04; 95% CI 1.07–163.56). The degree to which experienced staff (OR = 0.09; P = 0.05; 95% CI 0.09–0.97) affected the incidence of sepsis was less significant. Microorganisms were isolated from half the operating field, and the risk factor, in this case, depended on inexperienced surgical staff (OR = 1.98; P = 0.03; 95% CI 1.07–3.67). Although we were unable to find a means to predict sepsis, we presumed antibiotic prophylaxis would be useful.

Conclusions: The frequency of sepsis following neuroendovascular treatment is high. We should pay particular attention to the sterilization process and the operating field when undertaking neuroendovascular treatment that requires the use of a large-size sheath in patients with serious conditions.

endovascular treatment - infection - sepsis

References

• 1 Al-Okaili R, Patel SJ. Brain abscess after endovascular coiling of a saccular aneurysm: Case report.  AJNR. 2002;  23 697-699
• 2 Antonios VS, Baddour LM. Intra-arterial device infections.  Current Infectious Disease Reports. 2004;  6 263-269
• 3 Deiparine MK, Ballard JL, Taylor FC. et al . Endovascular stent infection.  J Vasc Surg. 1996;  23 529-533
• 4 Ducasse E, Calisti A, Speziale F. et al . Aortoiliac stent graft infection: current problems and management.  Ann Vasc Surg. 2004;  18 521-526
• 5 Jenkinson MD, Javadpour M, Nixon T. et al . Intracerebral abscess formation following embolisation of an internal carotid artery aneurysm using Guglielmi detachable coils.  Acta Neurochirurgica. 2003;  145 703-706
• 6 Kaviani A, Ouriel K, Kashyap VS. Infected carotid pseudoaneurysm and carotid-cutaneous fistula as a late complication of carotid artery stenting.  J Vasc Surg. 2006;  43 379-381
• 7 Meyer P, Reizine D, Aymard A. et al . Septic complications in interventional radiography: evaluation of risk and preventive measures. Preliminary studies.  J Interv Radiol. 1988;  3 73-75
• 8 Ryan JM, Ryan BM, Smith TP. Antibiotic prophylaxis in interventional radiology.  J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2004;  15 547-556
• 9 Samore MH, Wessolossky MA, Lewis SM. et al . Frequency, risk factors, and outcome for bacteremia after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty.  Am J Cardiol. 1997;  79 873-877

Correspondence