Impact of timing of device removal on mortality in patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic device infections

Delayed Improvement of Left Ventricular Function in Newly Diagnosed Heart Failure Depends on Etiology-A PROLONG-II Substudy

In patients with newly diagnosed heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), three months of optimal therapy are recommended before considering a primary preventive implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). It is unclear which patients benefit from a prolonged waiting period under protection of the wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD) to avoid unnecessary ICD implantations. This study included all patients receiving a WCD for newly diagnosed HFrEF (n = 353) at our center between 2012 and 2017. Median follow-up was 2.7 years. From baseline until three months, LVEF improved in patients with all peripartum cardiomyopathy (PPCM), myocarditis, dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM), or ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM). Beyond this time, LVEF improved in PPCM and DCM only (10 ± 8% and 10 ± 12%, respectively), whereas patients with ICM showed no further improvement. The patients with newly diagnosed HFrEF were compared to 29 patients with a distinct WCD indication, which is an explantation of an infected ICD. This latter group had a higher incidence of WCD shocks and poorer overall survival. All-cause mortality should be considered when deciding on WCD prescription. In patients with newly diagnosed HFrEF, the potential for delayed LVEF recovery should be considered when timing ICD implantation, especially in patients with PPCM and DCM.

Cost-Effectiveness of Antibiotic-Eluting Envelope for Prevention of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infections in Heart Failure

BACKGROUND

Use of an antibiotic-eluting envelope (AEE) during cardiac implantable electronic device procedures reduces infection risk but increases procedural costs. We aim to estimate the cost-effectiveness of AEE use during cardiac implantable electronic device procedures among patients with heart failure.

METHODS

A state-transition cohort model of heart failure patients undergoing cardiac implantable electronic device implantation or generator replacement was developed with input parameters estimated from randomized trials, registries, surveys, and claims data. Effectiveness was estimated from the World-Wide Randomized Antibiotic Envelope Infection Prevention Trial. AEE was assumed to cost $953 per unit. The model projected mortality, quality-adjusted life-years, costs, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of AEE use compared with usual care from a US healthcare sector perspective over a lifetime horizon. We assumed a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained.

RESULTS

Compared with usual care, AEE use in initial implantations produced an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $112 000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained (39% probability of being cost-effective). In generator replacement procedures, AEE use produced an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $54 000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained (84% probability of being cost-effective). Results were sensitive to the underlying rate of infection, cost of the AEE, and durability of AEE effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

Universal AEE use for cardiac implantable electronic device procedures in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction is unlikely to be cost-effective, reinforcing the need for individualized risk assessment to guide uptake of the AEE in clinical practice. Selective use in patients at increased risk of infection, such as those undergoing generator replacement procedures, is more likely to meet health system value benchmarks.

Leadless Pacemaker Implantation after Lead Extraction for Cardiac Implanted Electronic Device Infection

As the clinical indications for cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) have expanded, especially in patient populations with significant co-morbid conditions, the prevalence of CIED infections has in-creased. CIED related infections present in many forms, that may or may not lead to sepsis, ranging from isolated pocket infection to CIED endocarditis with lead involvement. The morbidity and mortality associated with CIED infection is considerable. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Retrospective study of post-operative infections in implantable cardiac devices in a cardiac tertiary care center

BACKGROUND

The rise in the incidence of implantation is one of the main causes behind the increased rate of CIED infection, which is considered as a serious life-threatening complication. The need of risk factor assessment has become a necessity to prevent further complications and provide prompt management.

OBJECTIVES

Identify the risk factors of infection postoperatively among patients who have implantable cardiac devices.

DESIGN

A retrospective case-control study.

SETTINGS

Cardiac center for adults.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The study included all adult patients (≥14 years of age) of all nationalities who underwent cardiac electronic device implantation that was managed in the cardiac center between January 2012 to December 2018.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Cardiac device infection and associated risk factors.

SAMPLE SIZE

213, including 23 (10.8%) infected case patients and 190 (89.2%) non-infected controls.

RESULTS

The mean (SD) age of non-infected patients was 45.0 (12.7) years compared with 61.7 (13.7) for infected patients (P<.0001). Anticoagulant use, hypertension, dysplipdemia and age were the most common patient-related risk factors associated with infection. For procedural and post-procedural risk factors, the risk of infection increased as the number of leads and length of procedure increased. The device most often related to infection was the pacemaker. In the multivariate analysis, longer procedure, greater number of leads, older age, anticoagulant use, and implanted pacemaker device were independently associated with infection.

CONCLUSION

We advise the prompt use of strict preoperative antiseptic prophylaxis measures and follow-up for post-implant patients along with patient education for early signs of infections, which will lead to improvement of both diagnosis and treatment quality for our patients in addition to reducing the economic impact on the health care system by minimizing infectious complications.

LIMITATIONS

Single tertiary center study, small sample size.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

None.

Impact of Timing of Transvenous Lead Removal on Outcomes in Infected Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) infections are associated with increased mortality and morbidity.

OBJECTIVE

This study sought to evaluate the impact of early versus delayed transvenous lead removal (TLR) on in-hospital mortality and outcomes in patients with CIED infection.

METHODS

Using the nationally representative, all-payer, Nationwide Readmissions Database, we evaluated patients undergoing TLR for CIED infection between January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2018. The timing of the TLR procedure was determined based on hospitalization days after initial admission for CIED infection. The impact of early (≤ 7 days) versus delayed (> 7 days) TLR on mortality and major adverse events was studied.

RESULTS

Of 12,999 patients who underwent TLR for CIED infections, 8,834 patients underwent early TLR versus 4,165 patients who underwent delayed TLR. Delayed TLR was associated with a significant increase in in-hospital mortality (8.3% vs. 3.5%, adjusted odds ratio:1.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.43-2.03; P value<0.001). Subgroup analysis of patients with CIED infection and systemic infection showed that delayed TLR in patients with systemic infection was associated with a higher rate of in-hospital mortality compared with early TLR (10.4% vs. 7.5%, adjusted odds ratio:1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.49; P value<0.019). Delayed TLR was also associated with significantly higher adjusted odds of major adverse events and post-procedural length of stay.

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest that delayed transvenous lead removal in patients with CIED infections is associated with increased in-hospital mortality and major adverse events, especially in patients with systemic infection.

Pacemaker infection and endocarditis due to Parvimonas micra: A case report and systematic review

Infective endocarditis caused by Parvimonas micra is rare. Its clinical features are presented in this systematic review. We also describe the case of an 82-year-old man with infective endocarditis and pacemaker infection due to P. micra. There are some reports of recurrence during antimicrobial therapy; hence, careful follow-up is necessary.

Strategies to increase the INGEVITY lead strength during lead extraction procedures based on laboratory bench testing

Background

The INGEVITY lead (Boston Scientific, St Paul, MN, USA) has excellent clinical performance. However, its single filar design results in decreased lead tensile strength and a possible challenging extraction. This study's goal is to evaluate techniques for extracting the INGEVITY lead.

Methods

Two‐ and three‐dimensional models were created to simulate lead extraction from a right atrial appendage lead implant with a left subclavian approach and lead/fibrosis attachment sites. Standard and unique lead extraction preparation strategies were evaluated. Traction forces were measured from a superior approach alone or in combination with a femoral approach.

Results

For lead extraction via the superior approach, leaving the terminal on the lead was the only factor influencing maximum tolerated load (p‐value = .0007). Scar attachment provided greater lead tensile strength by transferring traction loading forces to the polyurethane outer insulation but dependent on insulation integrity. The strongest extraction rail was seen with a simulated femoral snaring of a locking stylet within the INGEVITY lead. Deployed screw retraction was most successful by rotating a Philips LLD#2 stylet (Philips Healthcare, Amsterdam, Netherlands) within the lead.

Conclusion

Results from in vitro simulations of INGEVITY lead extraction from an atrial location found the lead has low maximum tensile strength resulting in a poor extraction rail with common extraction tools and methods. However, the strength of the INGEVITY Lead extraction rail can be significantly increased by leaving the lead terminal intact and femoral snaring of the locking stylet within the lead. Such techniques may improve extraction of the INGEVITY lead.

Clinical Profile and Outcome of Patients with Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device-Related Infection

Fundamento

Houve aumento expressivo na incidência de infecções relacionadas a dispositivos cardíacos eletrônicos implantáveis (DCEI) nos últimos anos, com impacto na mortalidade.

Objetivos

Verificar a proporção de pacientes com infecção de DCEI e analisar seu perfil clínico, as variáveis relacionadas com a infecção e sua evolução.

Método

Estudo retrospectivo, observacional e longitudinal com 123 pacientes com infecção de DCEI entre 6.406 procedimentos. Foram usados os testes paramétricos, e o nível de significância adotado na análise estatística foi de 5%.

Resultados

A idade média dos pacientes foi de 60,1 anos, e 71 eram homens. A média de internação foi de 35,3 dias, e houve remoção total do sistema em 105 pacientes. Identificaram-se endocardite infecciosa (EI) e sepse em 71 e 23 pacientes, respectivamente. A mortalidade intra-hospitalar foi 19,5%. Houve associação entre EI e extrusão do gerador (17,0% vs. 19,5% nos grupos com e sem EI, respectivamente, p = 0,04; associação inversa) e sepse (15,4% vs. 3,2%, p = 0,01). Houve associação entre morte intra-hospitalar e EI (83,3% vs. 52,0% com e sem morte, respectivamente, p = 0,005) e sepse (62,5% vs. 8,1%, p < 0,0001). Foi dada alta hospitalar a 99 pacientes. Durante a média de seguimento clínico de 43,8 meses, a taxa de mortalidade foi de 43%, e 65,2% dos pacientes com sepse faleceram (p < 0,0001). A curva de sobrevida de Kaplan-Meier não indicou associação significante com sexo, agente etiológico, fração de ejeção, EI e modalidade de tratamento. A taxa de mortalidade foi de 32,8% entre os pacientes submetidos a reimplante de eletrodos por via endocárdica e 52,2% entre aqueles por via epicárdica (p = 0,04). Não houve influência da etiologia chagásica, a qual correspondeu a 44,7% das cardiopatias de base, quanto às variáveis clínicas e laboratoriais ou à evolução.

Conclusões

A taxa de infecção foi de 1,9%, com predomínio em homens. Houve associação entre mortalidade intra-hospitalar e EI e sepse. Após a alta hospitalar, a taxa de mortalidade anual foi de 11,8%, com influência de sepse durante a internação e o implante epicárdico. (Arq Bras Cardiol. 2021; [online].ahead print, PP.0-0)

Therapy and outcomes of cardiac implantable electronic devices infections

Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection causes significant morbidity and mortality without appropriate treatment. It can present as incisional infection, pocket infection, systemic CIED infection, or occult bacteraemia. Complete percutaneous CIED extraction (excepted in case of incisional infection) and appropriate antibiotic therapy are the two main pillars of therapy. Device reimplantation, if needed, should be delayed sufficiently to allow control of the infection. Here, we address the differences in prognosis according to the clinical scenario and the different treatment options.

Early Versus Delayed Lead Extraction in Patients With Infected Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to assess the impact of early versus delayed lead extraction in patients with an infected cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED).

BACKGROUND

CIED infections are associated with poor outcomes. Prior studies have demonstrated improved survival with CIED extraction compared with antibiotic therapy alone. The impact of timing of CIED extraction has not been well characterized.

METHODS

All infected CIED extraction cases at our medical center from 2006 to 2019 were reviewed. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on the presence of bacteremia or isolated pocket infection. We assessed the in-hospital morbidity and 1-year mortality for early versus delayed lead extraction, using hospitalization day 7 as cutoff.

RESULTS

Of 233 patients who underwent CIED extraction, 127 patients had bacteremia and 106 patients had pocket infection. Delayed extraction (15.2 days) in bacteremic patients was associated with septic shock (odds ratio [OR]: 5.39; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.23 to 23.67; p = 0.026), acute kidney injury (OR: 5.61; 95% CI: 2.15 to 14.63; p < 0.001), respiratory failure (OR: 5.52; 95% CI: 1.25 to 24.41; p = 0.024), and decompensated heart failure (OR: 3.32; 95% CI: 1.10 to 10.05; p = 0.033). Locally infected patients with delayed extraction (10.7 days) were associated with acute kidney injury (OR: 3.45; 95% CI: 1.11 to 10.77; p = 0.033) and respiratory failure (OR: 10.29; 95% CI: 1.26 to 83.93; p = 0.030). Delayed CIED extraction in both groups was associated with increased 1-year mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Delayed infected CIED extraction is associated with worse outcomes. This underscores the importance of early detection and a strategy for prompt management including lead extraction.

A Review of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infections for the Practicing Electrophysiologist

Cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) infections are morbid, costly, and difficult to manage. This review explores the pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management of CIED infections. Diagnostic accuracy has been improved through increased awareness and improved imaging strategies. Pocket or bloodstream infection with virulent organisms often requires complete system extraction. Emerging prophylactic interventions and novel devices have expanded preventative strategies and options for re-implantation. A clear and nuanced understanding of CIED infection is important to the practicing electrophysiologist.

Staphylococcus simulans bloodstream infection following CIED extraction

A 78-year-old man with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) presented with chills and malaise. His history was significant for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and complete heart block. He had undergone permanent pacemaker placement that was later upgraded to an ICD 5 years before his presentation. Physical examination revealed an open wound with surrounding erythema overlying the device site. Blood cultures obtained on admission were negative. Transesophageal echocardiogram did not show valve or lead vegetations. He underwent a prolonged extraction procedure. Postoperatively, he developed septic shock and cultures from the device, and repeat peripheral blood cultures grew Staphylococcus simulans and Staphylococcus epidermidis He was treated with intravenous vancomycin but had refractory hypotension, leading to multiorgan failure. He later expired after being transitioned to comfort care. The patient may have acquired S. simulans by feeding cows on a nearby farm, and the prolonged extraction procedure may have precipitated the bacteraemia.

Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Device Infection and New Insights About Correlation Between Pro-inflammatory Markers and Heart Failure: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis

Introduction: Surgical approaches to treat patients with abnormal pro-inflammatory parameters remain controversial, and the debate on the correlation between hematological parameter alteration in cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection and the increase in mortality continues.

Methods: We performed a systematic review using the PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases. Twenty-two articles from May 2007 to April 2020 were selected and divided according to the following topics: prevalence of microbes in patients with CIED infection; characteristics of patients with CIED infection; comparison between patients who underwent and did not undergo replantation after device extraction; and correlation between alteration of hematological parameters and poor prognosis analysis.

Results: Epidemiological analysis confirmed high prevalence of male sex, staphylococcal infection, and coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS). The most common comorbidity was heart failure. Complete removal of CIED and antimicrobial therapy combination are the gold standard. CIED replacement was associated with higher survival. High preoperative white blood cell count and C-reactive protein levels increased the risk of right ventricular failure (RVF) development. Increased red blood cell distribution width (RDW) value or decreased platelet count was correlated with poor prognosis. No correlation was noted between preoperative leukocytosis and CIED infection.

Discussion: A relevant correlation between leukocytosis and RVF was observed. Heart failure may be related to high RDW values and decreased platelet count. Data on the correlation between hematological parameter alteration and poor prognosis are missing in many studies because of delayed implantation in patients showing signs of infection.

Cardiovascular implantable electronic devices and native arteriovenous fistula in hemodialysis patients: novel perspectives

The benefits from cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIED) implantation in hemodialysis (HD) patients are still far to be thoroughly defined, especially on primary prevention. In addition, CIED placement is not a risk-free procedure, because it could be followed by a not negligible burden of complications that could compromise the health and the vascular access of HD patients. In fact, the arteriovenous fistula (AVF) dysfunction following CIED implantation is usually due to a hemodynamically significant alteration of blood flow. This condition could lead to a potential decrease of dialysis efficacy and a raised risk of thrombosis of both the central vein and the efferent vein of the AVF.The pathological pathway that leads to AVF dysfunction after CIED implantation may involve the irritating actions of the CIED and their leads to the vascular wall in HD patients that are more prone to show previous vascular diseases.The aim of this review is to focus the physiopathology of the CIED-induced AVF dysfunction, the current treatment strategies and the novel perspectives that could be taken into consideration and offered to the HD population to preserve both their AVF and their quality of life.

Staphylococcus bacteremia without evidence of cardiac implantable electronic device infection

BACKGROUND

Staphylococcus bacteremia (SB) in the presence of a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) is frequently associated with CIED infection. In patients without clear CIED infection but SB, the role of empirical CIED removal is unclear.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to describe the natural history of SB in the setting of a CIED and the effect of CIED removal on mortality in patients with concurrent SB without evidence of CIED infection.

METHODS

Three hundred sixty consecutive patients (mean age 61 ± 17 years; 255 (71%) men; 329 (92%) Staphylococcus aureus) with a CIED and concurrent SB were reviewed.

RESULTS

At the initial presentation with SB, 178 patients had no evidence of CIED infection. Of these, 132 (74%) had another identified source of infection. Among the 178 patients without CIED infection, 18 (10%) had empirical CIED removal during the initial bacteremia. Among those who did not undergo CIED removal, SB subsequently relapsed in 19% and relapse rates were not different for those with or without another identifiable source at the initial presentation. Relapse was strongly associated with the duration of SB >1 day (odds ratio 9.99; 95% confidence interval 3.24-30.86). Despite the absence of CIED infection, 1-year mortality was 35% and empirical device removal during the initial presentation was associated with survival benefit (hazard ratio 0.28; 95% confidence interval 0.08-0.95).

CONCLUSION

For patients with SB without evidence of CIED infection, relapse is predicted by the duration of bacteremia. Empirical CIED removal appears to be associated with a survival benefit, although there are likely clinical situations in which this could be deferred.

A prospective comparison of four methods for preventing pacemaker pocket infections

This study aims to evaluate four pacemaker pocket cleaning methods for preventing implantation-related infections. This single-center trial prospectively randomized 910 patients undergoing first-time pacemaker implantation or replacement into four pocket cleaning methods: hemocoagulase (group A, n = 228), gentamicin (group B, n = 228), hemocoagulase plus gentamicin (group C, n = 227), and normal saline (group D, n = 227). Before implanting the pacemaker battery, the pockets were cleaned with gauze presoaked in the respective cleaning solutions. Then, these patients were followed up to monitor the occurrence of infections for 1 month after implantation. Twelve implantation-related infections occurred in 910 patients (1.32%): four patients from group A (1.75%), three patients from group B (1.32%), two patients from group C (0.88%), and three patients from group D (1.32%) (P > .05). Furthermore, two patients developed bloodstream infections (0.22%), and both of these patients were associated with pocket infection (one patient was from group A, while the other patient was from group C, respectively). No cases of infective endocarditis occurred. The differences in the number of infections in these study groups were not statistically significant. The application of hemocoagulase, gentamicin, hemocoagulase plus gentamicin, or normal saline on the presoaked gauze before implantation was equally effective in preventing pocket-associated infections.

Management of systemic fungal infections in the presence of a cardiac implantable electronic device: A systematic review

Evidence to inform the management of systemic fungal infections in the setting of a cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED), such as a permanent pacemaker or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, is scant and limited to case reports and series. The available literature suggests high morbidity and mortality. To better characterize the shared experience of these cases and their outcomes, we performed a systematic review. We investigated all published reports of systemic fungal infections-fungemia and fungal vegetative disease-in the context of CIED, drawing from PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane database of systematic reviews, inclusive of patients who received treatment between January 2000 and May 2020. Exclusion criteria included presence of ventricular assist device and concurrent bacteremia, bacterial endocarditis, bacterial vegetative infection, or viremia. Among 6261 screened articles, 48 cases from 41 individual studies were identified. Candida and Aspergillus species were the most commonly isolated fungi. There was significant heterogeneity in antifungal medication selection and duration. CIED extraction-either transvenous or surgical-was associated with increased survival to hospital discharge (92%) and clinical recovery at latest follow-up (81%), compared to cases where CIED extraction was deferred (56% and 40%, respectively). Importantly, there were no prospective data, and the data were limited to individual case reports and one small case series. In summary, CIED extraction is associated with improved fungal clearance and patient survival. Reported antifungal regimens are heterogeneous and nonuniform. Prospective studies are needed to verify these results and define optimal antifungal regimens.

[Infections in interventional electrophysiology]

The implantation of pacemakers and defibrillators carries the highest risk of infection in interventional electrophysiology. The use of implantable cardiac devices is continually increasing with almost 2 million devices implanted worldwide each year. The recipients' profile may also be associated with an increased risk of infection. Several measures can be implemented to reduce the risk of device-related infection. Systematic antibiotic prophylaxis has proven to be beneficial provided that prescription modalities are respected, especially with respect to the selection of the appropriate molecule and timing of administration prior to the procedure. Despite all the precautions taken during surgery (asepsis, prophylactic antibiotic therapy….) the estimated rate of peri-procedural infection is around 2%. Device related infections are associated with a high rate of morbidity and mortality as well as substantial healthcare costs. Staphylococcus aureus (SA) and epidermidis (SE) are the pathogenic agents involved in most cases. Prevention is crucial given the difficulties in treating such infections because of the near-systematic need to remove the device and antibiotic resistance. Leadless pacemakers and subcutaneous defibrillators are potential alternatives to implantable endocardial devices, albeit with certain limitations. A group of experts has recently issued consensus paper on the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of infections associated with endocardial implantable cardiac devices.

Vascularized Muscle Flap to Reduce Wound Breakdown During Flexible Electrode-Mediated Functional Electrical Stimulation After Peripheral Nerve Injury

The success of devices delivering functional electrical stimulation (FES) has been hindered by complications related to implants including skin breakdown and subsequent wound dehiscence. Our hypothesis was that a vascularized muscle flap along the dorsal surface of an epimysial electrode would prevent skin breakdown during FES therapy to treat atrophy of the gastrocnemius muscle during peripheral nerve injury. Resection of a tibial nerve segment with subsequent electrode implantation on the dorsal surfaces of the gastrocnemius muscle was performed on ten Lewis rats. In five rats, the biceps femoris (BF) muscle was dissected and placed along the dorsal surface of the electrode (Flap group). The other five animals did not undergo flap placement (No Flap group). All animals were treated with daily FES therapy for 2 weeks and degree of immune response and skin breakdown were evaluated. The postoperative course of one animal in the No Flap group was complicated by complete wound dehiscence requiring euthanasia of the animal on postoperative day 4. The remaining 4 No Flap animals showed evidence of ulceration at the implant by postoperative day 7. The 5 animals in the Flap group did not have ulcerative lesions. Excised tissue at postoperative day 14 examined by histology and in vivo Imaging System (IVIS) showed decreased implant-induced inflammation in the Flap group. Expression of specific markers for local foreign body response were also decreased in the Flap group.

Predictors of infection after "de novo" cardiac electronic device implantation

BACKGROUND

Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection is a major complication that increases morbidity and mortality after the procedure. Several infection risk scores have been suggested to identify patients at higher pre-procedural risk of infection OBJECTIVE: this study sought to evaluate rates of infection, potential risk factors and the role of a modified "Shariff" score as predictor of infection in high-risk patients undergoing de novo CIED implantation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We retrospectively analysed 1391 patients underwent a de novo CIED procedure during the study period. At the median follow-up of 48 months, 20 patients of 1391 (1.4%) developed a CIED-related infective event. In our population, we studied a modified version of the "Shariff" score for only first-time implant patients. At multivariate regression analysis, three factors were independent predictors of infection: previous pocket hematoma [RR 27.2 (8.30-54.02), p = 10^-10], a Shariff Score ≥ 4 [RR 3.20 (1.29-12.59), p= 0.029]. and reintervention for catheter malfunction or dislocation [RR 3.57 (1.2-37.4), p= 0.048].

CONCLUSIONS

a "Shariff" score > 4 is suggested as a predictor of higher risk of infection in patients after de novo device implantation. The use of an infection risk score may help to improve tailored pre-operatory strategies to prevent infection.

Lead Extraction for Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Device Infection in Patients With Left Ventricular Assist Devices

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study was to assess the utility of transvenous lead extraction for cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) infection in patients with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD).

BACKGROUND

The use of transvenous lead extraction for the management CIED infection in patients with a durable LVAD has not been well described.

METHODS

Clinical and outcomes data were collected retrospectively among patients who underwent lead extraction for CIED infection after LVAD implantation at Duke University Hospital.

RESULTS

Overall, 27 patients (n = 6 HVAD; n = 15 HeartMate II; n = 6 Heartmate III) underwent lead extraction for infection. Median (interquartile range) time from LVAD implantation to infection was 6.1 (2.5 to 14.9) months. Indications included endocarditis (n = 16), bacteremia (n = 9), and pocket infection (n = 2). Common pathogens were Staphylococcus aureus (n = 10), coagulase-negative staphylococci (n = 7), and Enterococcus faecalis (n = 3). Sixty-eight leads were removed, with a median lead implant time of 5.7 (3.6 to 9.2) years. Laser sheaths were used in all procedures, with a median laser time of 35.0 s (17.5 to 85.5s). Mechanical cutting tools were required in 11 (40.7%) and femoral snaring in 4 (14.8%). Complete procedural success was achieved in 25 (93.6%) patients and clinical success in 27 (100%). No procedural failures or major adverse events occurred. Twenty-one patients (77.8%) were alive without persistent endovascular infection 1 year after lead extraction. Most were treated with oral suppressive antibiotics after extraction (n = 23 [82.5%]). Persistent infection after extraction occurred in 4 patients and was associated with 50% 1-year mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Transvenous lead extraction for LVAD-associated CIED infection can be performed safely with low rates of persistent infection and 1-year mortality.

European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) international consensus document on how to prevent, diagnose, and treat cardiac implantable electronic device infections-endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS), International Society for Cardiovascular Infectious Diseases (ISCVID), and the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS)

Pacemakers, implantable cardiac defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices are potentially lifesaving treatments for a number of cardiac conditions but are not without risk. Most concerning is the risk of a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection, which is associated with significant morbidity, increased hospitalizations, reduced survival, and increased health care costs. Recommended preventive strategies such as administration of intravenous antibiotics before implantation are well-recognized. Uncertainties have remained about the role of various preventive, diagnostic, and treatment measures such as skin antiseptics, pocket antibiotic solutions, antibacterial envelopes, prolonged antibiotics post-implantation, and others. When compared with previous guidelines or consensus statements, the present consensus document gives guidance on the use of novel device alternatives, novel oral anticoagulants, antibacterial envelopes, prolonged antibiotics post-implantation, as well as definitions on minimum quality requirements for centres and operators and volumes. The recognition that an international consensus document focused on management of CIED infections is lacking, the dissemination of results from new important randomized trials focusing on prevention of CIED infections, and observed divergences in managing device-related infections as found in an European Heart Rhythm Association worldwide survey, provided a strong incentive for a Novel 2019 International State-of-the-art Consensus document on risk assessment, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of CIED infections.

Infective Endocarditis: A Contemporary Review

Infective endocarditis (IE), initially described more than 350 years ago, involves infection of the endocardial surface of the heart. The clinical manifestations of IE can involve every organ system, and the cardiac manifestations can include valvular vegetation, abscess, periannular extension of infection, and myopericarditis. Echocardiography is crucial in the diagnosis of IE, but alternative imaging modalities are playing an increasing role in the diagnosis and management of IE. Multidisciplinary care is imperative to the management of IE, often requiring the expertise of cardiologists, cardiothoracic surgeons, infectious diseases specialists, radiologists, and neurologists. We performed a literature search of the PubMed database from January 1st, 2000, to September 30th, 2019, using the terms infective endocarditis, diagnosis, and management to find the most pertinent and highest-quality evidence. This review summarizes key aspects of IE, with a focus on emerging advances in diagnosis. We also highlight growing patient populations at risk for IE, including patients with intracardiac devices and congenital heart disease.

European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) international consensus document on how to prevent, diagnose, and treat cardiac implantable electronic device infections-endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS), International Society for Cardiovascular Infectious Diseases (ISCVID) and the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS)

Pacemakers, implantable cardiac defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices are potentially life-saving treatments for a number of cardiac conditions, but are not without risk. Most concerning is the risk of a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection, which is associated with significant morbidity, increased hospitalizations, reduced survival, and increased healthcare costs. Recommended preventive strategies such as administration of intravenous antibiotics before implantation are well recognized. Uncertainties have remained about the role of various preventive, diagnostic, and treatment measures such as skin antiseptics, pocket antibiotic solutions, anti-bacterial envelopes, prolonged antibiotics post-implantation, and others. Guidance on whether to use novel device alternatives expected to be less prone to infections and novel oral anticoagulants is also limited, as are definitions on minimum quality requirements for centres and operators and volumes. Moreover, an international consensus document on management of CIED infections is lacking. The recognition of these issues, the dissemination of results from important randomized trials focusing on prevention of CIED infections, and observed divergences in managing device-related infections as found in an European Heart Rhythm Association worldwide survey, provided a strong incentive for a 2019 International State-of-the-art Consensus document on risk assessment, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of CIED infections.

Analysis of Outcomes in 8304 Patients Undergoing Lead Extraction for Infection

Background Patients undergoing lead extraction for infected devices have worse outcomes compared with those with noninfected devices. We assessed predictors of in-hospital mortality and procedure-related major adverse events (MAEs) in a large cohort undergoing lead extraction. Methods and Results Deidentified hospital records procedure from 7 states between 1994 and 2013 were aggregated and International Classification of Disease, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) procedure codes were used to identify hospital records reporting lead extraction. MAEs included death, cardiac tamponade, hemothorax, and need for emergent cardiac surgery. Predictors of in-hospital MAEs for infected compared with noninfected leads were identified using multivariate regression. Associations between outcomes and specific microbe were also assessed. In total, 57 220 discharges specified lead extraction. Infected leads accounted for the minority of total lead extractions compared with fractured leads (16.1 versus 59.8%, 25.7% not reported). There were 3298 MAEs (5.8%) including 980 deaths (1.7%). Multivariate predictors of MAE included black race, atrial fibrillation, anemia, heart failure, and admission via either hospital transfer or emergency department versus home (all P<0.001). Infected leads were associated with an increased risk of death (4.6% versus 0.9%, P<0.001) compared with leads with fracture only. Among patients with microbial data, staphylococcal infection was most common, whereas streptococcal infection was associated with the worst outcomes. Conclusions Patients undergoing extraction of infected leads have higher in-hospital mortality and adverse events compared with noninfected leads. Streptococcus, anemia, and heart failure are predictors of adverse outcomes.

European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) international consensus document on how to prevent, diagnose, and treat cardiac implantable electronic device infections-endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS), International Society for Cardiovascular Infectious Diseases (ISCVID) and the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS)

Pacemakers, implantable cardiac defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices are potentially life-saving treatments for a number of cardiac conditions, but are not without risk. Most concerning is the risk of a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection, which is associated with significant morbidity, increased hospitalizations, reduced survival, and increased healthcare costs. Recommended preventive strategies such as administration of intravenous antibiotics before implantation are well recognized. Uncertainties have remained about the role of various preventive, diagnostic, and treatment measures such as skin antiseptics, pocket antibiotic solutions, anti-bacterial envelopes, prolonged antibiotics post-implantation, and others. Guidance on whether to use novel device alternatives expected to be less prone to infections and novel oral anticoagulants is also limited, as are definitions on minimum quality requirements for centres and operators and volumes. Moreover, an international consensus document on management of CIED infections is lacking. The recognition of these issues, the dissemination of results from important randomized trials focusing on prevention of CIED infections, and observed divergences in managing device-related infections as found in an European Heart Rhythm Association worldwide survey, provided a strong incentive for a 2019 International State-of-the-art Consensus document on risk assessment, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of CIED infections.

Transfemoral extraction of pacemaker and implantable cardioverter defibrillator leads using Needle's Eye Snare: a single-center experience of more than 900 leads

The femoral approach with the Needle's Eye Snare (NES) is often used for bailout after failure of the superior approach for transvenous lead extraction (TLE). The safety and efficacy of the NES as a first-line tool for TLE remain unclear. The medical records of patients who underwent TLE via the femoral approach utilizing the NES from May 2014 to June 2019 in Peking University People's Hospital were retrospectively reviewed. Nine hundred and eighty-five leads were extracted in 492 patients (369 men; mean age 72.8 ± 29.0 years). The median (range) number of leads extracted per patient was 2 (1-6). The mean indwelling time of all extracted leads was 112.6 ± 52.0 months. The complete procedure success rate, clinical success rate, and failure rate were 94.1% (463/492), 97.8% (481/492), and 1.1% (11/492), respectively. Major complications including death occurred in nine patients (1.9%), of whom eight developed cardiac tamponade. Among these eight patients, emergency pericardiocentesis followed by rescue surgical repair if necessary was successful in 6 (75.0%) and failed in 2 (25.0%). No significant differences were found in the clinical success rate or major complications rate between patients with pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators, or between patients with infected and uninfected leads. A femoral approach with the NES is safe and effective for TLE of both pacing and defibrillator leads and could be considered a first-line approach. Cardiac tamponade was the most frequent cardiovascular complication. A strategy of emergency pericardiocentesis followed by a rescue surgical approach seems to be reasonable technique to treat a cardiac tamponade.

Is it safe to remove an infected cardiac implantable electronic device at the time of heart transplantation? Report of two cases

Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infections are treated with antibiotics and device explantation. Lack of CIED removal is associated with infection recurrence. However, CIED removal can be associated with major complications including death. We reported two patients with advanced heart disease who developed CIED infection due Staphylococcus epidermidis while awaiting for orthotopic heart transplantation (OHT). Both patients were managed with a different approach. They were treated with antibiotic therapy and had their CIED removal postponed until OHT. Both patients were kept on suppressive antibiotic treatment until undergoing simultaneous OHT and removal of infected CIED. None of the patients had infection recurrence. Large studies are needed to assess whether the approach of delaying CIED removal until OHT is safe among carefully selected patients with CIED infection.

The Diagnosis and Treatment of Pacemaker-Associated Infection

BACKGROUND

Approximately 105 000 cardiac electronic devices are newly implanted in Germany each year. Germany has the highest implantation rate with respect to population of any European country. Infections in cardiac implants are serious complications, with an associated in-hospital mortality of 5-15%. It is thus very important to optimize the diagnostic and therapeutic strategies by which such infections can be detected early and treated effectively.

METHODS

This review is based on pertinent publications retrieved by a search in PubMed, with special attention to the current recommendations of international medical specialty societies.

RESULTS

According to the international literature, the incidence of device-associated infection is 1.7% (in six months) for implanted defibrillators and 9.5% (in two years) for resynchronization devices. No absolute figures on infection rates are available for Germany. Infection can involve either the site where the impulse generator is implanted or the intravascular portion of the electrodes. The most important elements of the diagnostic evaluation are: assessment of the local findings; pathogen identification by culture of peripheral blood, swabs of the infected site, or material recovered at surgery; and transesophageal echocardiography to detect endocarditic deposits on the electrodes or cardiac valves. The treatment consists of appropriate antibiotic administration and the complete removal of all foreign material. These special extractions are generally performed via the transvenous route. With the aid of various sheath systems, the procedure can be carried out safely and effectively, with a success rate above 95% and a complication rate below 3%. The indications for the implantation of a new device after eradication of the infection should be critically reassessed.

CONCLUSION

Untreated infection carries a high mortality. Evaluation and treatment according to a standardized clinical algorithm facilitate correct and timely diagnosis and the choice of an appropriate therapeutic strategy.

Cardiovascular implantable electronic device infections due to enterococcal species: Clinical features, management, and outcomes

BACKGROUND

Enterococcal cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) infections are not well characterized.

METHODS

Data from the Multicenter Electrophysiologic Device Infection Cohort, a prospective study of CIED infections, were used for descriptive analysis of adults with enterococcal CIED infections.

RESULTS

Of 433 patients, 21 (4.8%) had enterococcal CIED infection. Median age was 71 years. Twelve patients (57%) had permanent pacemakers, five (24%) implantable cardioverter defibrillators, and four (19%) biventricular devices. Median time from last procedure to infection was 570 days. CIED-related bloodstream infections occurred in three patients (14%) and 18 (86%) had infective endocarditis (IE), 14 (78%) of which were definite by the modified Duke criteria. IE cases were classified as follows: valvular IE, four; lead IE, eight; both valve and lead IE, six. Vegetations were demonstrated by transesophageal echocardiography in 17 patients (81%). Blood cultures were positive in 19/19 patients with confirmed results. The most common antimicrobial regimen was penicillin plus an aminoglycoside (33%). Antibiotics were given for a median of 43 days. Only 14 patients (67%) underwent device removal. There was one death during the index hospitalization with four additional deaths within 6 months (overall mortality 24%). There were no relapses.

CONCLUSIONS

Enterococci caused 4.8% of CIED infections in our cohort. Based on the late onset after device placement or manipulation, most infections were likely hematogenous in origin. IE was the most common infection syndrome. Only 67% of patients underwent device removal. At 6 months follow-up, no CIED infection relapses had occurred, but overall mortality was 24%.

Timing of device reimplantation and reinfection rates following cardiac implantable electronic device infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Initial management of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection requires removal of the infected CIED system and treatment with systemic antibiotics. However, the optimal timing to device reimplantation is unknown. The aim of this study was to quantify the incidence of reinfection after initial management of CIED infection, and to assess the effect of timing to reimplantation on reinfection rates.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTERVENTIONS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed of studies published up to February 2018. Inclusion criteria were: (a) documented CIED infection, (b) studies that reported the timing to device reimplantation and (c) studies that reported the proportion of participants with device reinfection. A meta-analysis of proportions using a random effects model was performed to estimate the pooled device reinfection rate.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measure was the rate of CIED reinfection. The secondary outcome was all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

Of the 280 screened studies, 8 met inclusion criteria with an average of 96 participants per study (range 15-220 participants). The pooled incidence rate of device reinfection was 0.45% (95% CI, 0.02% to 1.23%) per person year. A longer time to device reimplantation >72 hours was associated with a trend towards higher rates of reinfection (unadjusted incident rate ratio 4.8; 95% CI 0.9 to 24.3, p=0.06); however, the meta-regression analysis was unable to adjust for important clinical covariates. There did not appear to be a difference in reinfection rates when time to reimplantation was stratified at 1 week. Heterogeneity was moderate (I²=61%).

CONCLUSIONS

The incident rate of reinfection following initial management of CIED infection is not insignificant. Time to reimplantation may affect subsequent rates of device reinfection. Our findings are considered exploratory and significant heterogeneity limits interpretation.

PROSERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD4201810960.

Prognosis after lead extraction in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices infection: Comparison of lead-related infective endocarditis with pocket infection in a Japanese single-center experience

Background

The increase in the use of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) has been associated with an increase in CIED-related infections. Transvenous lead extraction is safe and effective for patients with CIED-related infections; however, the mortality rate in these patients is high. The prognosis after transvenous lead extraction in Japanese patients, especially those with lead-related infective endocarditis, has not been evaluated. Then, the purpose of this study is to clarify the prognosis after transvenous lead extraction in Japanese patients with CIED-related infections at a single Japanese center.

Methods

A total of 107 patients who underwent transvenous lead extraction were retrospectively reviewed. The patients were divided into a lead-related infective endocarditis group (n = 32) and a pocket infection group (n = 75). Procedure success rate and prognosis after lead extraction were evaluated between the two groups.

Results

Procedure success rate was not significantly different between the groups. There were no deaths associated with the procedure or with infection. The survival rate was not significantly different at 1 year or at a median of 816 days (lead-related infective endocarditis vs pocket infection; 93.7% vs 94.7%, P = 1.000; 78.1% vs 81.3%, P = 0.791) Time to reimplantation and duration of hospital stay and antibiotics therapy were significantly longer for patients with lead-related infective endocarditis.

Conclusion

In this study, the prognosis for patients with lead-related infective endocarditis after transvenous lead extraction was favorable. Thus, extraction should be strongly recommended, even if the general condition of the patient is poor.

Role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in the diagnosis of cardiovascular implantable electronic device infections: A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

We performed a meta-analysis evaluating the use of fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) positron-emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) in the diagnosis of cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) infections.

BACKGROUND

PET/CT may be helpful in the diagnosis of CIED infection, particularly in patients with the absence of localizing signs or definitive echocardiographic findings.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, CINAHL, Web of Knowledge, and www.clinicaltrials.gov from January 1990 to April 2017 were searched for studies evaluating the accuracy of PET/CT in the diagnosis of CIED infections.

RESULTS

Overall, 14 studies involving 492 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity of PET/CT for diagnosis of CIED infection was 83% (95% CI 78%-86%) and the pooled specificity was 89% (95% CI 84%-94%). PET/CT demonstrated a higher sensitivity of 96% (95% CI 86%-99%) and specificity of 97% (95% CI 86%-99%) for diagnosis of pocket infections. Diagnostic accuracy for lead infections or CIED-IE was lower with pooled sensitivity of 76% (95% CI 65%-85%) and specificity of 83% (95% CI 72%-90%).

CONCLUSION

Use of PET/CT in the evaluation of CIED infection has both a high sensitivity (83%) and specificity (89%) and deserves consideration in the management of selected patients with suspected CIED infections.

Complete Pocket Resection with Regional Flap Closure for Treatment of Cardiac Implantable Device Infections

Background:

Cardiac implantable electronic device infections are associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. There are varied recommendations in the literature about treatment of the wound after extraction of all hardware, but only conservative, time-consuming approaches such as open packing and negative-pressure therapy along with a long interval before reimplanting any hardware have generally been recommended for the treatment.^1–4

Methods:

A retrospective review was performed of 42 patients treated at Jersey Shore University Medical Center for implantable cardioverter defibrillator and permanent pacemaker infections between July 2010 and April 2018 with an aggressive, multidisciplinary approach utilizing an invasive cardiologist and a plastic surgeon. Clinical and demographic data were collected, and a descriptive analysis was conducted.

Results:

A total of 42 patients, with a median age of 76 years, were selected for our treatment of pacemaker pocket infection. Patients underwent removal of all hardware followed by debridement and flap closure of the wound soon after extraction. Reimplantation was performed when indicated typically within a week after initial extraction and typically on the contralateral side. There were no reports of reinfection and no mortality in all 42 patients treated.

Conclusion:

We found that the aggressive removal of all hardware and excisional debridement of the entire capsule followed by flap coverage and closure of the wound allowed for a shortened interval to reimplantation with no ipsilateral or contralateral infections during the follow-up period.

Unusual conservative treatment of a complicated pacemaker pocket infection: a case report

Background

For patients with complicated generator pocket infection, expert consensuses universally advocate complete device and leads removal followed by delayed replacement on the contralateral side. We cured our patient by partial generator removal and reimplantation of sterilized pulse generator on the ipsilateral side. We also performed a literature review about incomplete removal therapy for the management of cardiac implantable electronic device infection.

Case presentation

An 86-year-old Chinese Han man was diagnosed as having third-degree atrioventricular block and received a permanent double-chamber pacemaker in his left prepectoral area 15 years ago. Nine years later, the entire system was removed because of confirmed infection, and a new device was reimplanted in the contralateral area. He developed skin necrosis around the pacemaker pocket after 1 year, and his generator was renewed without leads extraction at another medical center. He was subsequently admitted several times for surgical tissue debridement at another institution due to extended skin necrosis. At the time of the new admission, he had severe infection, heart failure, and hypoalbuminemia. He was diagnosed as having complicated pacemaker pocket infection. Our preferred treatment strategy was for complete removal of both the generator and transvenous pacing leads, and we intended to implant an epicardial pacemaker in our patient if necessary. However, he rejected the treatment strategy and firmly refused to replace his generator. We had to attempt a novel pacemaker-preserving strategy considering our patient’s severe comorbidities. Finally, we cured him by partial generator removal and reimplantation of the sterilized pulse generator on the ipsilateral side. There was no sign of wound dehiscence or infection during a 6-month follow-up.

Conclusions

We would posit that partial removal of infected generators combined with conservative treatment may be a proper treatment of complicated generator pocket infection, especially for those who are susceptible to cardiac complications. Reimplantation of a sterilized pulse generator on the ipsilateral side may be an option if patients reject a new device and contralateral vascular condition is not really suitable. Opting for such treatment should be at the consideration of the primary care physician based on the condition of the patient.

Predictors of Bloodstream Infection in Patients Presenting With Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Device Pocket Infection

Background

Generator pocket infection is the most frequent presentation of cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) infection. We aim to identify predictors of underlying bloodstream infection (BSI) in patients presenting with CIED pocket infection.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed all adults with CIED pocket infection cared for at our institution from January 2005 through January 2016. The CIED pocket infection cases were then subclassified as with or without associated BSI. Variables with P values <.05 at univariate analysis were included in a multivariable model to identify independent predictors of underlying BSI.

Results

We screened 429 cases of CIED infection, and 95 met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 68 cases (71.6%) were categorized as non-BSI and 27 (28.4%) as BSI. There were no statistically significant differences in patient comorbid conditions or device characteristics between the 2 groups. In multivariable analysis, the presence of systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria (tachycardia, tachypnea, fever or hypothermia, and leukocytosis or leukopenia) and hypotension were independent predictors of underlying BSI in patients presenting with CIED pocket infection. Overall, patients in the non-BSI group who did not receive pre-extraction antibiotics had a higher frequency of positive intraoperative pocket/device cultures than those with pre-extraction antibiotic exposure (79.4% vs 58.6%; P = .06).

Conclusions

Patients with CIED pocket infection who meet systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria and/or are hypotensive at admission are more likely to have underlying BSI and should be started on empiric antibiotics after blood cultures are obtained. If these features are absent, it may be reasonable to withhold empiric antibiotics to optimize yield of pocket/device cultures during extraction.

Novel technique to manage pacemaker exposure with buried flap reconstruction: case series

Objective

Exposure of implantable electrical devices may increase morbidity and mortality significantly. Usually superficial infections are conservatively managed whereas invasive infections necessitate complete capsulectomy, sub-pectoral placement or implant exchange. Most commonly inadequate soft tissue coverage, soft tissue thinning and scar dehiscence over the edge of the pacemaker are the primary predisposing event. Multiple local surgical options have been described, however, with all these designs, the final scar still remains over the edge of the pacemaker and continue to have a tendency of thinning out with time. We have described a local skin flap which can be de-epithelialized and partially buried under the skin to increase the thickness over the pacemaker edge, thereby preventing further recurrence.

Methods

Three patients admitted in the Cardiology Department presented with impending exposure (n=2)and exposed implant (n=1) over the edge of pacemaker with superficial infection. Local modified rotation skin flap which was de-epithelialized and partially buried under the skin to increase the thickness over the pacemaker edge was performed under local anaesthesia in all the cases.

Results

Flaps settled well in all patients with no evidence of infection, scar dehiscence and recurrence over a follow-up period of 2 years.

Conclusions

This flap technique is recommended for cases of impending pacemaker exposure resulting due to scar dehiscence over the edge and helps by addressing the predisposing factors at an initial stage. In our experience, this technique also helped to salvage exposed pacemaker with superficial infection. To our bestof knowledge this technique has not been described before in the literature.

Mid-axillary pacemaker re-implantation after contralateral pocket infection in an emaciated elderly case

The number of implantations of cardiac implantable electrophysiological devices (CIEDs) has increased over the past several years. However, the aging population and expansion of indications for CIEDs have led to an increase in associated infections. We experienced a case of a 99-year-old man presenting with skin erosion at the pocket site, where a 6-month-old implantable pacemaker was replaced. He was referred for pacemaker pocket infection and presented with fever accompanied by pain and swelling around pacemaker generator. We could not explant 7-year-old pacemaker leads and the patient refused to undergo either laser lead extraction or surgical removal. We planned to re-implant in the contralateral chest. However, the patient was emaciated with low body-mass-index (15.2 kg/m²), thus concerns arose about the possibility of tissue disruption and re-infection owing to thin skin and absence of sufficient subcutaneous tissue in contralateral subclavian region. Axillary placement of CIEDs has been adopted in patients with limited venous access. We applied a mid-axillary pacemaker implant procedure to this elderly and emaciated patient. Postoperative clinical course was uneventful. After discharge, no history of unexplained fever or illness was recorded. Mid-axillary pacemaker pocket could be an alternative approach for re-implantation in patients with emaciated, cachexic, or limited pocket preparation. <Learning objective: We apply the mid-axillary pacemaker implant procedure to a nonagenarian with contralateral pacemaker infection to minimize the risk of skin disruption after implantation. This implies that implantation is possible in patients with emaciated or cachexic or infection of the contralateral subclavian pocket. Mid-axillary pacemaker pocket could be an alternative approach for re-implantation in patients with emaciated, cachexic, or limited pocket preparation.> .

Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Device Infections

Infections associated with cardiac implantable electronic devices are increasing and are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. This article reviews the epidemiology, microbiology, and risk factors for acquisition of these infections. The complex diagnostic and management strategies associated with these serious infections are reviewed with an emphasis on recent updates and advances, as well as existing controversies. Additionally, the latest in preventative strategies are reviewed.

Percutaneous Lead Extraction in Infection of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices: a Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

In the last two decades, the increased number of implants of cardiac implantable electronic devices has been accompanied by an increase in complications, especially infection. Current recommendations for the appropriate treatment of cardiac implantable electronic devices-related infections consist of prolonged antibiotic therapy associated with complete device extraction. The purpose of this study was to analyze the importance of percutaneous extraction in the treatment of these devices infections.

METHODS

A systematic review search was performed in the PubMed, BVS, Cochrane CENTRAL, CAPES, SciELO and ScienceDirect databases. A total of 1,717 studies were identified and subsequently selected according to the eligibility criteria defined by relevance tests by two authors working independently.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies, describing a total of 3,354 patients, were selected. Percutaneous extraction was performed in 3,081 patients. The average success rate for the complete percutaneous removal of infected devices was 92.4%. Regarding the procedure, the incidence of major complications was 2.9%, and the incidence of minor complications was 8.4%. The average in-hospital mortality of the patients was 5.4%, and the mortality related to the procedure ranged from 0.4 to 3.6%. The mean mortality was 20% after 6 months and 14% after a one-year follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Percutaneous extraction is the main technique for the removal of infected cardiac implantable electronic devices, and it presents low rates of complications and mortality related to the procedure.

Diagnostic evaluation and management of culture-negative cardiovascular implantable electronic device infections

BACKGROUND

Culture-negative (CN) cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) infections represent a significant management challenge for clinicians with no specific guidelines addressing this subgroup of patients. The aim of the current investigation is to report our institutional experience of CN CIED infections and propose a systematic approach to diagnostic evaluation and management of these complicated cases based on our observations.

METHODS

We retrospectively screened all CIED infection cases at Mayo Clinic from 2005 through 2017. Using standardized criteria to define significant microbial growth, all patients with positive blood or pocket/device cultures were excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 835 cases of CIED infection were screened, and of these, 47 (6%) met CN-CIED infection criteria. Majority of patients (77%) in this cohort had received antimicrobial therapy prior to device cultures with a median duration of 8 days. The most common presentation was device pocket infection (81%). All patients underwent device removal. Route of antibiotics was switched from oral to parenteral and spectrum of activity expanded from initial therapy in 23% of patients despite negative cultures. Majority of patients (80%) were dismissed on parenteral therapy. Adverse events attributed to intravenous antibiotic therapy were documented in 63% of the cases. No recurrence was reported and 6-month survival was 94.8%.

CONCLUSIONS

Pocket and device cultures in suspected CIED infections may be negative due to preextraction oral antibiotics. However, frequently these patients are managed with broad-spectrum parenteral therapy postextraction.

Attempted salvage of infected cardiovascular implantable electronic devices: Are there clinical factors that predict success?

BACKGROUND

Published guidelines mandate complete device removal in cases of cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) infection. Clinical predictors of successful salvage of infected CIEDs have not been defined.

METHODS

Data from the Multicenter Electrophysiologic Device Infection Collaboration, a prospective, observational, multinational cohort study of CIED infection, were used to investigate whether clinical predictors of successful salvage of infected devices could be identified.

RESULTS

Of 433 adult patients with CIED infections, 306 (71%) underwent immediate device explantation. Medical management with device retention and antimicrobial therapy was initially attempted in 127 patients (29%). "Early failure" of attempted salvage occurred in 74 patients (58%) who subsequently underwent device explantation during the index hospitalization. The remaining 53 patients (42%) in the attempted salvage group retained their CIED. Twenty-six (49%) had resolution of CIED infection (successful salvage group) whereas 27 patients (51%) experienced "late" salvage failure. Upon comparing the salvage failure group, early and late (N = 101), to the group experiencing successful salvage of an infected CIED (N = 26), no clinical or laboratory predictors of successful salvage were identified. However, by univariate analysis, coagulase-negative staphylococci as infecting pathogens (P = 0.0439) and the presence of a lead vegetation (P = 0.024) were associated with overall failed salvage.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with definite CIED infections, clinical and laboratory variables cannot predict successful device salvage. Until new data are forthcoming, device explantation should remain a mandatory and early management intervention in patients with CIED infection in keeping with existing expert guidelines unless medical contraindications exist or patients refuse device removal.

Treatment patterns, costs, and mortality among Medicare beneficiaries with CIED infection

BACKGROUND

Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection is a serious adverse event, but there are limited contemporary real-world data on treatment pathways and associated costs in the Medicare population following diagnosis of CIED infection. Hence, this study evaluates postinfection treatment pathways and associated healthcare expenditures and mortality among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with CIED infection.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort analysis of 5,401 beneficiaries who developed a device-related infection in the year following implantation/upgraded CIED (1/1/2010-12/31/2012). Patients were followed-up to 12 months/death following diagnosis of infection and were divided into mutually exclusive groups based on whether they underwent CIED system removal (Group I), or no CIED system intervention (Group II; IIA with or IIB without infection hospitalization). All-cause healthcare resource utilization/expenditures were also measured.

RESULTS

In the year following infection, 64.1% of patients underwent device extraction, of who 2,109 (39.0%) had their device replaced (Group IA) and 1,355 (25.1%) had their device extracted without replacement (Group IB); 62.2% of patients were hospitalized and 25.3% of patients died. Mean Medicare payments-per-patient for facility-based services by group were: IA = $62,638 (standard deviation [SD]: $46,830), IB = $50,079 (SD: $45,006), IIA = $77,397 (SD: $79,130), and IIB = $22,856 (SD: $31,167).

CONCLUSIONS

Hospitalizations were the largest cost driver; infection-related costs, including cost of extraction/replacement, accounted for >50% of expenditures for patients with surgical/hospital intervention. Management of CIED infection in Medicare beneficiaries is associated with high healthcare expenditures in the year following infection. Additional measures to prevent device infection are needed to improve the outcomes and reduce costs in these patients.