A clinical case of successful treatment of an infected AVF prosthesis with VAC therapy

Introduction: infectious complications of permanent vascular access are a common cause of rehospitalization of patients on hemodialysis and can lead to loss of access in 20% of cases. Due to the limited vascular resources, it is necessary to introduce more modern and safe methods of treating this complication. Vacuum aspiration therapy has already established itself as a reliable and effective way to treat infected wounds in various areas of surgery. The use of vacuum therapy (VAC-system) promotes biological cleansing and reduction of bacterial contamination of the wound surface, has a positive effect on the regeneration capabilities of tissues, reduces intoxication and systemic inflammatory response, prevents secondary contamination of the wound with microbial flora, which reduces the time of wound healing and hospitalization of the patient. Clinical case: the article presents a clinical case of successful treatment of an infected wound of the upper third of the right shoulder in the area of the venous fistula of a vascular prosthesis using VAC therapy. Conclusion: infectious complications after the formation of AVF inevitably increase the duration of treatment and hospitalization and increase the risk of septic complications, thrombosis, and vascular erosion. Our experience has shown that treating infected AVF prostheses with VAC therapy is safe and allows for maintaining vascular access. Further research is needed to develop a more straightforward treatment algorithm.

VAC-терапия, артериовенозная фистула, гемодиализ, артериовенозный протез, VAC-therapy, arteriovenous fistula, hemodialysis, arteriovenous prosthesis

1. Lok C.E., Huber T.S. Lee T., et al. KDOQI Clinical Practice Guideline for Vascular Access: 2019 Update. Am J Kidney Dis. 2020. 75(4):S1-S164. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2019.12.001

2. Patel P.R., Kallen A.J., Arduino M.J. Epidemiology, surveillance, and prevention of bloodstream infections in hemodialysis patients. Am J Kidney Dis. 2010. 56(3):566-77. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2010.02.352

3. Brisinda G., Chiarello M.M. The impact of negative pressure wound therapy for closed surgical incisions on surgical site infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Surgery. 2021. 169(5):1257-1259. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2020.07.039

4. Hyldig N., Birke-Sorensen H., Kruse M., et al. Meta-analysis of negative-pressure wound therapy for closed surgical incisions. Br J Surg. 2016. 103(5):477-86. doi: 10.1002/bjs.10084

5. Suissa D., Danino A., Nikolis A. Negative-pressure therapy versus standard wound care: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011. 128(5):498e-503e. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e31822b675c

6. Шабунин А.В., Парфенов И.П., Дроздов П.А. и соавт. Преимущества VAC-терапии перед стандартными методами лечения инфицированных и длительно не заживающих ран после трансплантации почки. Вестник трансплантологии и искусственных органов. 2021. 23(1):24-29. https://doi.org/10.15825/1995-1191-2021-1-24-29