Michael Döring1, Lisa Hienzsch2, Micaela Ebert2, Johannes Lucas2, Nikolaos Dagres2, Michael Kühl3, Gerhard Hindricks2, Helge Knopp2, Sergio Richter2. 1. Department of Electrophysiology, Heart Center at University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany. Electronic address: michael.doering@medizin.uni-leipzig.de. 2. Department of Electrophysiology, Heart Center at University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany. 3. Department of Cardiology, University Hospital of Coventry and Warwickshire, Coventry, United Kingdom.
Abstract
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.
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.