Literature DB >> 29759687

Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infections: Added Complexity and Suboptimal Outcomes With Previously Abandoned Leads.

Ayman A Hussein1, Khaldoun G Tarakji1, David O Martin1, Abhishek Gadre1, Thomas Fraser1, Alice Kim1, Michael P Brunner1, Amr F Barakat1, Walid I Saliba1, Mohamed Kanj1, Bryan Baranowski1, Daniel Cantillon1, Mark Niebauer1, Thomas Callahan1, Thomas Dresing1, Bruce D Lindsay1, Steven Gordon1, Bruce L Wilkoff1, Oussama M Wazni2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess the impact of previously abandoned leads on the clinical management of cardiac device infections, notably transvenous lead extraction and subsequent clinical course.
BACKGROUND: The population of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices continues to grow with a disproportionate increase in device infections, which are invariably life threatening. A potentially complicating issue is the widely practiced strategy of device lead abandonment at the time of system revision, change, or upgrade, which is affecting an increasing number of patients.
METHODS: The study assessed the impact of previously abandoned leads in a prospectively maintained registry of consecutive patients undergoing percutaneous extraction of infected cardiac devices at the Cleveland Clinic between August 1996 and September 2012. The primary clinical endpoint was complete procedural and clinical success defined as the successful removal of the device and all lead material from the vascular space, in the absence of a major complication.
RESULTS: Of 1,386 patients with infected cardiac devices, 323 (23.3%) had previously abandoned leads. Failure to achieve the primary endpoint occurred more frequently in patients with abandoned leads (13.0% vs. 3.7%; p < 0.0001). This was primarily due to retention of lead material (11.5% vs. 2.9%; p < 0.0001), which was associated with poor clinical outcomes including higher rates of 1-month mortality (7.4% vs. 3.5% in those without lead remnants). Lead extraction procedures in patients with previously abandoned leads were longer (p < 0.0001), with longer fluoroscopy times (p < 0.0001), and more likely to require specialized extraction tools (94.4% vs. 81.8%; p < 0.0001) or adjunctive rescue femoral workstations (14.9% vs. 2.9%; p < 0.0001). Procedural complications occurred more frequently in patients with previously abandoned leads (11.5% vs. 5.6%; p = 0.0003), which was true for both major (3.7% vs. 1.4%; p = 0.009) and minor complications (7.7% vs. 4.4%; p = 0.02).
CONCLUSIONS: Previously abandoned leads complicate the management of cardiac device infections, leading to worse clinical outcomes.
Copyright © 2017 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  complications; device infection; transvenous lead extraction

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 29759687     DOI: 10.1016/j.jacep.2016.06.009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JACC Clin Electrophysiol        ISSN: 2405-500X


  6 in total

1.  Complications of retained cardiac defibrillator coil left in situ.

Authors:  Sameera Gamalath; Adel Ekladious; Luke Wheeler; Louise Fish
Journal:  BMJ Case Rep       Date:  2020-02-25

2.  Prevention of cardiac implantable electronic device infections: guidelines and conventional prophylaxis.

Authors:  Carina Blomstrom-Lundqvist; Bozena Ostrowska
Journal:  Europace       Date:  2021-05-25       Impact factor: 5.214

3.  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).

Authors:  Carina Blomström-Lundqvist; Vassil Traykov; Paola Anna Erba; Haran Burri; Jens Cosedis Nielsen; Maria Grazia Bongiorni; Jeanne Poole; Giuseppe Boriani; Roberto Costa; Jean-Claude Deharo; Laurence M Epstein; Laszlo Saghy; Ulrika Snygg-Martin; Christoph Starck; Carlo Tascini; Neil Strathmore
Journal:  Europace       Date:  2020-04-01       Impact factor: 5.214

Review 4.  Transvenous lead extraction in conduction system pacing.

Authors:  Nadeev Wijesuriya; Mark K Elliott; Vishal Mehta; Jonathan M Behar; Steven Niederer; Bruce L Wilkoff; Christopher A Rinaldi
Journal:  Front Physiol       Date:  2022-08-11       Impact factor: 4.755

5.  Step by Step through the Years-High vs. Low Energy Lead Extraction Using Advanced Extraction Techniques.

Authors:  David Zweiker; Basma El Sawaf; Giuseppe D'Angelo; Andrea Radinovic; Alessandra Marzi; Luca R Limite; Antonio Frontera; Gabriele Paglino; Michael Spartalis; Donah Zachariah; Kenzaburo Nakajima; Paolo Della Bella; Patrizio Mazzone
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-08-19       Impact factor: 4.964

6.  Transvenous Lead Extraction without Procedure-Related Deaths in 1000 Consecutive Patients: A Single-Center Experience.

Authors:  Paweł Stefańczyk; Dorota Nowosielecka; Łukasz Tułecki; Konrad Tomków; Anna Polewczyk; Wojciech Jacheć; Andrzej Kleinrok; Wojciech Borzęcki; Andrzej Kutarski
Journal:  Vasc Health Risk Manag       Date:  2021-08-05
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.