Extraction of infected cardiac implantable electronic devices and the need for subsequent re-implantation.
Cardiac device infection
Defibrillator
Lead extraction
Pacemaker
Re-implantation
Journal
International journal of cardiology
ISSN: 1874-1754
Titre abrégé: Int J Cardiol
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 8200291
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 06 2020
15 06 2020
Historique:
received:
30
10
2019
revised:
12
12
2019
accepted:
23
12
2019
pubmed:
25
1
2020
medline:
31
5
2022
entrez:
25
1
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Little is known about rates of re-implantation and outcomes of patients not implanted with a device after transvenous lead extraction (TLE) in cardiac device related infections (CDRI). All patients with CDRI were included in a prospective registry. After TLE, the indication for re-implantation was evaluated according to the patients' history and most recent cardiac examinations. All patients were followed for complications and mortality. In addition, in patients discharged without device the frequency of device implantations was analyzed. Among 302 patients, only 123 (40.7%) met the indication for implantation of the same cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED), 68 (22.5%) received a different device and 111 (36.8%) patients were discharged without CIED. Reimplanted patients were younger (70 ± 11 vs. 73 ± 13 years; p = 0.004), more often male (83 vs. 69%, p = 0.006), had less systemic infection (38 vs. 60%; p < 0.001) and a higher prevalence of complete heart block (28 vs. 7%, p < 0.001). Reasons against re-implantation were: loss of indication (45%), never met indication (27%), patients' preference (17%), persistent infection (8%) and advanced age (3%). During 26 ± 18 months of follow-up, mortality in both groups was similar after adjusting for cofactors (HR 0.79; 95% CI 0.49-1.29; p = 0.352). More than one third of patients undergoing TLE for CDRI in our study are not implanted with a new device. Careful evaluation of the initial CIED indication allows for detection of over treated patients and may avoid unnecessary device-related complications.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Little is known about rates of re-implantation and outcomes of patients not implanted with a device after transvenous lead extraction (TLE) in cardiac device related infections (CDRI).
METHODS
All patients with CDRI were included in a prospective registry. After TLE, the indication for re-implantation was evaluated according to the patients' history and most recent cardiac examinations. All patients were followed for complications and mortality. In addition, in patients discharged without device the frequency of device implantations was analyzed.
RESULTS
Among 302 patients, only 123 (40.7%) met the indication for implantation of the same cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED), 68 (22.5%) received a different device and 111 (36.8%) patients were discharged without CIED. Reimplanted patients were younger (70 ± 11 vs. 73 ± 13 years; p = 0.004), more often male (83 vs. 69%, p = 0.006), had less systemic infection (38 vs. 60%; p < 0.001) and a higher prevalence of complete heart block (28 vs. 7%, p < 0.001). Reasons against re-implantation were: loss of indication (45%), never met indication (27%), patients' preference (17%), persistent infection (8%) and advanced age (3%). During 26 ± 18 months of follow-up, mortality in both groups was similar after adjusting for cofactors (HR 0.79; 95% CI 0.49-1.29; p = 0.352).
CONCLUSION
More than one third of patients undergoing TLE for CDRI in our study are not implanted with a new device. Careful evaluation of the initial CIED indication allows for detection of over treated patients and may avoid unnecessary device-related complications.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31973885
pii: S0167-5273(19)35284-2
doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2019.12.044
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
84-91Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of competing interest MD, ME, JL, ND, MK, GH, HK, and SR report research grants from Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific and Medtronic to the institution without personal financial benefits. LH reported no conflict of interest.