Shengwu Zheng1, Xiongmei Huang2, Yazhou Lin3, Xiaohui Chen4, Genhui Lin2, Jing Zhuang2. 1. Department of Burn and Plastic Surgery, Shengli Clinical Medical College of Fujian Medical University, Fujian Provincial Hospital, No. 134, Street East, Fuzhou, 350001, China. dr.zhengshengwu@yahoo.com. 2. Department of Burn and Plastic Surgery, Shengli Clinical Medical College of Fujian Medical University, Fujian Provincial Hospital, No. 134, Street East, Fuzhou, 350001, China. 3. Department of Cardiology, Fujian Heart Disease Research Institute, Shengli Clinical Medical College of Fujian Medical University, Fujian Provincial Hospital, Fuzhou, China. 4. Department of Anesthesiology, Shengli Clinical Medical College of Fujian Medical University, Fujian Provincial Hospital, Fuzhou, China.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The occurrence of cardiac pacemaker pocket infection has markedly increased and has become a new problem facing cardiovascular internists. The aim of our study was to investigate the effectiveness and safety of treating cardiac pacemaker pocket infection using negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) in patients who are unwilling or unable to have their cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) removed. METHODS: From March 2013 to April 2019, NPWT was applied to 26 patients with cardiac pacemaker pocket infection who were unwilling or unable to have their CIEDs removed. In the first stage, a negative-pressure drainage system was placed in the pacemaker pocket after debridement. Then, NPWT was used to seal the wound, and the negative pressure (300-400 mmHg) was sustained for 5-7 days. In the second stage, the pacemaker was relocated to the subpectoral layer, and the wound was closed. RESULTS: In all but three of our 26 patients, the wound healed completely without complications and without evidence of residual infection. The average follow-up period was 26.92 ± 9.46 months. Only 3 diabetic patients whose tissue bacterial cultures revealed that methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis developed uncontrolled infections. Eventually, the entire original pacemaker systems were removed, and new pacemakers were implanted in the contralateral chest wall. CONCLUSIONS: When warranted by strictly selected indications, the method of NPWT without CIED extraction can be considered as a new and effective treatment for patients with pacemaker pocket infection who are unwilling or unable to have the device removed.
PURPOSE: The occurrence of cardiac pacemaker pocket infection has markedly increased and has become a new problem facing cardiovascular internists. The aim of our study was to investigate the effectiveness and safety of treating cardiac pacemaker pocket infection using negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) in patients who are unwilling or unable to have their cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) removed. METHODS: From March 2013 to April 2019, NPWT was applied to 26 patients with cardiac pacemaker pocket infection who were unwilling or unable to have their CIEDs removed. In the first stage, a negative-pressure drainage system was placed in the pacemaker pocket after debridement. Then, NPWT was used to seal the wound, and the negative pressure (300-400 mmHg) was sustained for 5-7 days. In the second stage, the pacemaker was relocated to the subpectoral layer, and the wound was closed. RESULTS: In all but three of our 26 patients, the wound healed completely without complications and without evidence of residual infection. The average follow-up period was 26.92 ± 9.46 months. Only 3 diabeticpatients whose tissue bacterial cultures revealed that methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis developed uncontrolled infections. Eventually, the entire original pacemaker systems were removed, and new pacemakers were implanted in the contralateral chest wall. CONCLUSIONS: When warranted by strictly selected indications, the method of NPWT without CIED extraction can be considered as a new and effective treatment for patients with pacemaker pocket infection who are unwilling or unable to have the device removed.