Comparison of standard and modified transvenous techniques for complex pacemaker lead extractions in the context of cardiac implantable electronic device-related infections: a 10-year experience

Negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) for the treatment of pacemaker pocket infection in patients unable or unwilling to undergo CIED extraction

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.

In vivo biocompatibility and pacing function study of silver ion-based antimicrobial surface technology applied to cardiac pacemakers

Introduction

Evidence suggests that the rate of cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) infections is increasing more rapidly than the rates of CIED implantation and is associated with considerable mortality, morbidity and health economic impact. Antimicrobial surface treatments are being developed for CIEDs to reduce the risk of postimplantation infection within the subcutaneous implant pocket.

Methods and analysis

The feasibility of processing cardiac pacemakers with the Agluna antimicrobial silver ion surface technology and in vivo biocompatibility were evaluated. Antimicrobially processed (n=6) and control pacemakers (n=6) were implanted into subcutaneous pockets and connected to a part of the sacrospinalis muscle using an ovine model for 12 weeks. Pacemaker function was monitored preimplantation and postimplantation.

Results

Neither local infection nor systemic toxicity were detected in antimicrobial or control devices, and surrounding tissues showed no abnormal pathology or over-reactivity. Semiquantitative scores of membrane formation, cellular orientation and vascularity were applied over five regions of the pacemaker capsule and average scores compared. Results showed no significant difference between antimicrobially processed and control pacemakers. Silver analysis of whole blood at 7 days found that levels were a maximum of 10 parts per billion (ppb) for one sample, more typically ≤2 ppb, compared with <<2 ppb for preimplantation levels, well below reported toxic levels.

Conclusions

There was no evidence of adverse or abnormal pathology in tissue surrounding antimicrobially processed pacemakers, or deleterious effect on basic pacing capabilities and parameters at 12 weeks. This proof of concept study provides evidence of basic biocompatibility and feasibility of applying this silver ion-based antimicrobial surface to a titanium pacemaker surface.

Transvenous Lead Extraction via the Inferior Approach Using a Gooseneck Snare versus Simple Manual Traction

Background and Objectives

The number of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices needing lead extraction is increasing for various reasons, including infections, vascular obstruction, and lead failure. We report our experience with transvenous extraction of pacemaker and defibrillator leads via the inferior approach of using a gooseneck snare as a first-line therapy and compare extraction using a gooseneck snare with extraction using simple manual traction.

Subjects and Methods

The study included 23 consecutive patients (43 leads) who underwent transvenous lead extraction using a gooseneck snare (group A) and 10 consecutive patients (17 leads) who underwent lead extraction using simple manual traction (group B). Patient characteristics, indications, and outcomes were analyzed and compared between the groups.

Results

The dwelling time of the leads was longer in group A (median, 121) than in group B (median, 56; p=0.000). No differences were noted in the overall procedural success rate (69.6% vs. 70%), clinical procedural success rate (82.6% vs. 90%), and lead clinical success rate (86% vs. 94.1%) between the groups. The procedural success rates according to lead type were 89.2% and 100% for pacing leads and 66.7% and 83.3% for defibrillator leads in groups A and B, respectively. Major complications were noted in 3 (mortality in 1) patients in group A and 2 patients in group B.

Conclusion

Transvenous extraction of pacemaker leads via an inferior approach using a gooseneck snare was both safe and effective. However, stand-alone transvenous extraction of defibrillator leads using the inferior approach was suboptimal.