 |
 |

Gram-Negative Sepsis Following Operation for Congenital Heart DiseaseDiagnosis, Management, and Results
William S. Pierce, MD;
George J. Peckham, MD;
Julian Johnson, MD;
John A. Waldhausen, MD
AMA Arch Surg. 1970;101(6):698-703.
Abstract
Twenty-four of a series of 540 patients undergoing operative treatment of congenital heart disease developed septicemia. In the 20 patients under 6 months of age, mechanical ventilation was used postoperatively; the signs and symptoms of sepsis were vague. One infant in this group is alive. In the four between the ages of 2 and 32 years, one was successfully treated by antibiotics, two required reoperation to replace prosthetic patches with autogenous pericardium, and one died from septic shock. Gram-negative bacteria, resistant to the "prophylactic" antibiotics used, were most commonly encountered. The source of sepsis was the lungs, the operative wound, or an intravenous catheter. In five cases, the source was not apparent. The study suggests that sepsis is a more common cause of death following cardiovascular operations in infants than had been realized. Infected intracardiac prostheses cannot be sterilized by antibiotics and must be removed.
Author Affiliations
Philadelphia
From the Department of Surgery and Pediatrics, School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania; the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia; and the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Drs. Pierce and Waldhausen are now at the Milton S. Hershey Medical Center of Pennsylvania State University, Hershey, Pa.
Footnotes
Accepted for publication July 30, 1970.
Read before the 18th scientific meeting of the International Cardiovascular Society, Chicago, June 19, 1970.
Reprint requests to Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Pennsylvania State University, College of Medicine, Hershey, Pa 17033 (Dr. Pierce).
CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Reddit Technorati Twitter
What's this?
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
Cerebral Embolism: Review and Current Perspectives
Calkins
Arch Intern Med 1972;130:430-436.
ABSTRACT
|