Literature DB >> 23813450

A historical perspective of pacemaker infections: 40-years single-centre experience.

Tina S Tischer1, Anne Hollstein, Wolfgang Voss, Imke Wendig, Jörg Lauschke, Ralph Schneider, Georg H von Knorre, Dietmar Bänsch.   

Abstract

AIMS: The approach to infected cardiac devices has changed during recent decades. Optimal treatment is still a matter of debate, especially in pacemaker-dependent patients. Therefore, we investigated the management and outcome of patients with pacemaker infections in a single centre over four decades. METHODS AND
RESULTS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 4212 patients and extracted those with pacemaker infections admitted to Rostock Heart Center between 1973 and 2012. One hundred and thirty-one consecutive patients (median age 69.6 ± 14.9 years) were admitted for device infections. Two-stage exchange was performed in 42 patients (32.8%). In 72 patients (55%), explantation and implantation on the contralateral side was performed simultaneously. In 17 cases the device was not replaced. Mean follow-up was 63 ± 81 months. Reinfection rate was 12.2%, which declined from 24% (1980s) to 2.6% (after 2000). Complete device removal (in 57.3%) reduced the risk for reinfection by 75% (P = 0.02), as well as increasing age (0.049% per year, P = 0.001). One-stage exchange increased the risk of reinfection six-fold (P = 0.021). Cultured bacteria after initiation of antibiotic therapy predicted a four-fold increase in risk of a recurrent infection (P = 0.01).
CONCLUSION: Continuous assimilation of guidelines for pacemaker infection improved the outcome over time: complete extraction of the infected device seems to be highly desirable. A one-stage exchange increased the risk of recurrent device infection and should probably be avoided, but complete extraction seems to be more important than timing.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Device exchange; One-stage-procedure; Pacemaker; Reinfection

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23813450     DOI: 10.1093/europace/eut193

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Europace        ISSN: 1099-5129            Impact factor:   5.214


  4 in total

1.  Differences in laser lead extraction of infected vs. non-infected leads.

Authors:  Simon Pecha; Liesa Castro; Julia Vogler; Matthias Linder; Nils Gosau; Stephan Willems; Hermann Reichenspurner; Samer Hakmi
Journal:  Heart Vessels       Date:  2018-04-05       Impact factor: 2.037

2.  Failure of communication and capture: The perils of temporary unipolar pacing system.

Authors:  Efe Sahinoglu; Thomas J Wool; Kenneth J Wool
Journal:  J Arrhythm       Date:  2014-10-30

Review 3.  Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infections.

Authors:  Steven Leung; Stephan Danik
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 2.931

4.  Prognostic factors in infective endocarditis in general hospitals in the Netherlands.

Authors:  F van den Brink; J Hasenaar; V Winia; M Klomp; B Van Vlies; D Nicastia; B Groenmeijer; R Braam; W Jaarsma; A J Funke Kupper
Journal:  Neth Heart J       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 2.380

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.