{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027910685805422646, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01674641148325359, 'mean_word_length': 5.243781094527363, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Routine invasive hemodynamic monitoring does not increase risk of aortic graft infection.

OBJECTIVE
To determine whether invasive hemodynamic monitoring resulted in an increased rate of aortic graft infection.


DESIGN
Retrospective review with establishment of late follow-up.


SETTING
Two referral teaching community medical centers.


PATIENTS
Three hundred thirty consecutive patients who underwent elective aortoiliac (174), aortofemoral (91), or aortic tube (65) prosthetic graft placements during a 6-year period at the two institutions. All patients had percutaneous pulmonary artery catheter and radial artery cannula placement before surgery. Monitoring catheters were routinely removed within 72 hours.


OUTCOME MEASURES
Early and late complications of catheter placement, perioperative morbidity and mortality, and late graft-related complications.


RESULTS
Eighteen (5%) patients died in the perioperative period. Less than 2-year follow-up was possible in 67 patients. The remaining 245 patients were observed from 2 to 9 years (mean, 4.4 years). Graft infection was not identified in any patient.


CONCLUSION
Routine invasive hemodynamic monitoring was not associated with an increase in the rate of prosthetic aortic graft infection.