The management of exposed cardiac pacemaker pulse generator and electrode using restricted local surgical interventions; subcapsular relocation and vertical-to-horizontal bow transposition techniques

Salvage of Infected Cardiac Implantable Electrical Devices with Subpectoral Plane Pocket Revision

Introduction Infection of cardiac implantable electrical devices (CIEDs) may lead to serious complications. Complete CIED explantation is expensive, requires expertise, not free from complications, and may not be an option in patients with device dependence.

Aim To highlight that carefully selected infected CIEDs can be salvaged by placing the device in a subpectoral pocket below the pectoralis major muscle. We conducted a retrospective descriptive observational study.

Material and Methods Twelve patients (10 male and two female) with erosion, exposure or infection of infraclavicular, subcutaneously placed CIED were treated over a 30-month period between July 2018 and December 2020. The technique involved debridement and excision of a peridevice capsule, creating a subpectoral pocket beneath the pectoralis major muscle, and placing the CIED in a new pocket with total muscle coverage and closure of skin without tension.

Results Twelve patients ( m = 10; f = 2) with a mean age of 65 years (range, 46–82 years) presented with infection of CIED within 9 months of implantation. None had sepsis or endocarditis. In nine patients, CIEDs were successfully salvaged with relocation to subpectoral pocket. Mean follow-up was 20 months (range, 8–30 months). Three out of 12 developed reinfection that ultimately required CIED explantation. There was no mortality.

Conclusion In the absence of sepsis or endocarditis, infected CIEDs may be attempted at salvage by subpectoral pocket placement. This obviates the need for potentially risky explantation or replacement of expensive CIEDs.

Salvage of Threatened Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices: Case Series and Review of Literature

BACKGROUND

The treatment of infected or exposed cardiac pacing and defibrillator devices is controversial. The conservative and widely accepted management calls for removal of the device and leads with immediate or delayed replacement of new components in a new site. Lead extraction carries a 2% major complication risk. In this article, we describe our experience with device salvage techniques and review the current literature.

METHODS

This is a retrospective case series of consecutive patients with infected, exposed, or at-risk implanted cardiac devices that were treated with aggressive surgical debridement, local pocket irrigation, and revision. A comprehensive review of the literature regarding device infection management was performed.

RESULTS

Ten patients with threatened devices were identified. Surgical revision with the aim to salvage the device was successful in 8 (80%) of 10 cases. Seventeen retrospective publications were reviewed. All indicate success with attempted salvage surgery, but heterogeneity of data limits formal meta-analysis and prevents management recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

Cardiac pacing and defibrillator devices with low-grade infection or threatened exposure may be salvaged without explantation. Despite the lack of clear management guidelines or data, plastic surgeons may be asked to assist in the management of threatened cardiac devices. Further prospective trials are required to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of attempted implant salvage.

Palliation and Nonextraction Approaches

Although definitive therapy for infected cardiac implantable electronic device systems requires removal of all hardware in the infected areas with extraction of intravascular components as well, there are situations where extraction is not available or appropriate. Palliative procedures and chronic suppressive antibiotics may be used in these cases. There are also options that may in some cases result in long-term freedom from infection.

Safe and Simplified Salvage Technique for Exposed Implantable Cardiac Electronic Devices under Local Anesthesia

Background

Skin erosion is a dire complication of implantable cardiac pacemakers and defibrillators. Classical treatments involve removal of the entire generator and lead systems, however, these may result in fatal complications. In this study, we present our experience with a simplified salvage technique for exposed implantable cardiac electronic devices (ICEDs) without removing the implanted device, in an attempt to reduce the risks and complication rates associated with this condition.

Methods

The records of 10 patients who experienced direct ICED exposure between January 2012 and December 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. The following surgical procedure was performed in all patients: removal of skin erosion and capsule, creation of a new pocket at least 1.0–1.5 cm inferior to its original position, migration of the ICED to the new pocket, and insertion of closed-suction drainage. Patients with gross local sepsis or septicemia were excluded from this study.

Results

Seven patients had cardiac pacemakers and the other 3 had implantable cardiac defibrillators. The time from primary ICED placement to exposure ranged from 0.3 to 151 months (mean, 29 months. Postoperative follow-up in this series ranged from 8 to 31 months (mean follow-up, 22 months). Among the 10 patients, none presented with any signs of overt infection or cutaneous lesions, except 1 patient with hematoma on postoperative day 5. The hematoma was successfully treated by surgical removal and repositioning of the closed-suction drainage.

Conclusions

Based on our experience, salvage of exposed ICEDs is possible without removing the device in selected patients.

Management of exposure of cardiac pacemaker systems

The erosion and exposure of pacemakers are relatively uncommon occurrences but, given the number of these devices inserted yearly, they are nevertheless occurrences that plastic surgeons are likely to encounter in practice. Although there is a general agreement that clinically infected devices are best removed, it has been established that exposed but noninfected devices can usually be managed conservatively with coverage procedures. Reports in the literature, to date, describe a number of different procedures for coverage, and these reports generally comprise small numbers of patients. This study describes 16 patients referred to a single surgeon over a 14-year period with exposure or suspected impending exposure of their cardiac pacemaker systems. Fourteen patients required surgical revision for coverage of either the generator or defunctionalized wires. Equivalent success was achieved with either subfascial or submuscular coverage in 11 patients with generators present. Three patients with exposure of defunctionalized wires achieved successful coverage with submuscular burial. There was no correlation of culture results with recurrence of exposure.

Salvage of Exposed Implantable Cardiac Electrical Devices and Lead Systems With Pocket Change and Local Flap Coverage

Erosion and exposure of pacemaker (PPM) and implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) devices are potentially dire complications, which have classically required the removal of the entire generator and lead systems. This study evaluates a series of cases wherein debridement, irrigation, pocket change, and local flap coverage were used for the successful salvage of indwelling leads after exposure and infection of implantable cardiac defibrillator devices. Patients with skin erosion, infection, and/or exposure of prepectoral infraclavicular cardiac defibrillator devices were treated over a 23-month period between June 2004 and April 2006. The surgical technique involved wide excision of the exposure site with a rhombic incision pattern, followed by removal of the generator unit and complete debridement of the peridevice capsule. Subclavian atrioventricular (AV) leads were preserved. The pocket was irrigated with antibiotic solution. A new pocket plane was selected and developed, and a new generator unit was implanted. A rhombic flap was developed and transposed to achieve tension-free closure over closed suction drains. Data were reviewed retrospectively. Six patients were treated, all male, mean age 66 years (range, 50 to 83 years). All patients presented with "new" exposure of the implantable generator within 48 hours. None demonstrated gross purulence, sepsis, or endocarditis. Initial gram stain was negative for bacteria in all cases, 1 (17%) grew sensitive Staphylococcus epidermidis species. Mean follow-up is 22 months (range, 8 to 31 months). One patient (17%) developed a hematoma, successfully treated by aspiration. Five patients (83%) were treated successfully, with no wound dehiscence, generator or lead exposure, or recurrence of infection. One patient (17%) developed drainage and exposure at a separate site (AV lead) at 10 months postoperative and required generator and lead explantation and site change to the contralateral anterior chest wall. In conclusion, in the absence of sepsis or gross infection, skin excision, pocket change, generator change with lead preservation, closed-suction drainage, and flap coverage for tension-free closure should be considered in the treatment of early ICD and PPM exposure.

Myocardial Rupture After Pulling Out a Tined Atrial Electrode with Continuous Traction

Transvenous traction for the removal of retained pacemaker electrodes is common practice with few reported complications. This case reports a patient with a DDD pacemaker with extruded electrodes, who died of a myocardial rupture at the atrial lead site after prolonged (i.e., after 24 hours) traction was applied.