The outcomes of leadless pacemaker (LP) implantation after transvenous lead removal (TLR) of infected cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are not well-established. This study sought to describe the outcomes of LP implantation after TLR of infected CIED. We conducted a literature search using PubMed and Embase for a combination of terms including LP implantation, transvenous lead extraction, TLR, transvenous lead explant, infected CIED, infected pacemaker, and infected implantable cardioverter defibrillator. The inclusion criterion was LP implantation after TLR of infected CIED. The exclusion criterion was TLR for noninfectious reasons. Study end points included procedural complications and LP infection during follow-up. Of 132 publications reviewed, 13 studies with a total of 253 patients (74 ± 14 years of age, 174 [69%] males) were included. The most common indication of the initial device implantations was a high-degree atrioventricular block (n = 100 of 253, 39.5%). Of the 253 patients included, 105 patients (41.5%) underwent concomitant LP implantation during the TLR procedure, and 36 patients (14.2%) had temporary transvenous pacing as a bridge from TLR to LP implantation. Of the 148 patients with data on the type of CIED infection, 56.8% had systemic CIED infection and 43.2% had isolated pocket infection. Staphylococcus aureus was the most common causative organism in 33% of the reported patients. The LP was implanted an average of 5.4 ± 10.7 days after TLR of infected CIED. During the LP implantation, 1 patient (0.4%) had unsuccessful implantation because of an intraprocedural complication requiring sternotomy. After LP implantation, 2 patients (0.8%) developed groin hematoma, 2 patients (0.8%) developed femoral arteriovenous fistula, and 1 patient (0.4%) developed pericardial effusion requiring pericardiocentesis. During a mean follow-up of 11.3 ± 10.6 months, 3 patients (1.2%) developed pacemaker syndrome, 1 patient (0.4%) developed acute on chronic heart failure exacerbation, and only 1 patient (0.4%) developed LP-related infection requiring LP retrieval. This study suggests that LP implant is feasible and safe after removal of infected CIED with cumulative adverse events at 4% and a reinfection rate of 0.4%. Large prospective studies are needed to better evaluate the best timing of LP implantation after TLR of an infected CIED.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2023.07.071DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

infected cied
24
tlr infected
20
transvenous lead
16
implantation tlr
16
patient 04%
16
implantation transvenous
12
04% developed
12
implantation
11
infected
10
tlr
9

Similar Publications

This case details the successful implantation of a leadless pacemaker following the extraction of transvenous leads in a 72-year-old female patient with a complex cardiovascular history. The patient had undergone a series of cardiac interventions, including a recent percutaneous tricuspid valve repair with a metal clip implant due to severe regurgitation. After presenting with an infection at the pacemaker site, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus hominis was identified, necessitating the removal of the entire pacing system.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Background: Globally, the number of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) is increasing. In our study, we aimed to investigate whether CHADS-VASc and RCHADS-VASc scores are predictive of CIED-related complications.

Methods: Our investigation was carried out with a multicenter retrospective design.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Background: Removal of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) is strongly recommended for CIED-related infections, and leadless pacemakers (LPs) are increasingly used for reimplantation. However, the optimal timing and safety of LP implantation after CIED removal for infection remains unclear.This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess complication rates (all-cause mortality and reinfection) when LP implantation was performed simultaneously with or after CIED removal.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Fat Liquefaction and Lipo Particles in a CIED Pocket During Generator Change-Not an Infection: A Rare Case Report.

Int Med Case Rep J

January 2025

Department of Cardiology, Heart Center, Qingdao Municipal Hospital, Qingdao, Shandong, 266071, People's Republic of China.

A case of fat liquefaction and fat particles in the pacemaker pocket observed in a female patient 12 years after implantation. The patient had no symptoms and no signs of infection or other discomfort of the heart and pacemaker pocket. The biochemical analysis showed a slight increase in cardiac troponin T, 0.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs), including pacemakers, implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICD), and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices, regulate heart rate and rhythm in patients with cardiac conditions. With an aging population, CIED-related complications, especially pacemaker pocket infections, are rising. Risk factors include frailty, older age, and superficial device fixation, while risk mitigation involves larger pocket sizes, submuscular fixation, and absorbable antibacterial envelopes.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!