Comparison of epicardial vs. endocardial reimplantation in pacemaker-dependent patients with device infection

Epicardial Versus Endocardial Pacing in Paediatric Patients with Atrioventricular Block or Sinus Node Dysfunction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Pacing indications in children are clearly defined, but whether an epicardial (EPI) or an endocardial (ENDO) pacemaker performs better remains to be elucidated. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to directly compare the incidence of pacemaker (PM) lead-related complications, mortality, hemothorax and venous occlusion between EPI and ENDO in children with atrioventricular block (AVB) or sinus node dysfunction (SND). Literature search was conducted in MEDLINE (via PubMed), Scopus by ELSEVIER, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science, and OpenGrey databases until June 25, 2022. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed to assess the pacing method's effect on lead failure, threshold rise, post-implantation infection and battery depletion and secondarily on all-cause mortality, hemothorax and venous occlusion. Several sensitivity analyses were also performed. Of 22 studies initially retrieved, 18 were deemed eligible for systematic review and 15 for meta-analysis. Of 1348 pediatric patients that underwent EPI or ENDO implantation, 542 (40.2%) had a diagnosis of congenital heart disease (CHD). EPI was significantly associated with higher possibility of PM-lead failure [pooled odds ratio (pOR) 3.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.05-4.39; I2 = 0%]; while possibility for threshold rise, post-implantation infection and battery depletion did not differ between the PM types. Regarding the secondary outcome, the mortality rates between EPI and ENDO did not differ. In sensitivity analyses the results were consistent results between the two PM types. The findings suggest that EPI may be associated with increased PM-lead failure compared to ENDO while threshold rise, infection, battery depletion and mortality rates did not differ.

Current Views on Infective Endocarditis: Changing Epidemiology, Improving Diagnostic Tools and Centering the Patient for Up-to-Date Management

Infective endocarditis (IE) is a rare but potentially life-threatening disease, sometimes with longstanding sequels among surviving patients. The population at high risk of IE is represented by patients with underlying structural heart disease and/or intravascular prosthetic material. Taking into account the increasing number of intravascular and intracardiac procedures associated with device implantation, the number of patients at risk is growing too. If bacteremia develops, infected vegetation on the native/prosthetic valve or any intracardiac/intravascular device may occur as the final result of invading microorganisms/host immune system interaction. In the case of IE suspicion, all efforts must be focused on the diagnosis as IE can spread to almost any organ in the body. Unfortunately, the diagnosis of IE might be difficult and require a combination of clinical examination, microbiological assessment and echocardiographic evaluation. There is a need of novel microbiological and imaging techniques, especially in cases of blood culture-negative. In the last few years, the management of IE has changed. A multidisciplinary care team, including experts in infectious diseases, cardiology and cardiac surgery, namely, the Endocarditis Team, is highly recommended by the current guidelines.

Outcomes in cardiac implantable electronic device-related infective endocarditis: a systematic review of current literature

Aim: Cardiac implantable electronic device infective endocarditis is a serious infection with poor prognosis. Materials & methods: The systematic review of the literature was conducted using searches from the various databases. We included studies published between January 2010 and June 2021. Results: A total of 35 articles met the inclusion criteria. Patients were approximately 70 years old and an average of 71.2% of patients were male. The most common presenting feature was a fever. The modified Duke criteria was used to aid diagnosis. Management entailed extraction of the cardiac implantable electronic device in 80.5% of the studies. The overall mortality rates ranged from 4 to 36%. The most frequently isolated organism was Staphylococcus aureus. Conclusion: Cardiac implantable electronic device infective endocarditis needs timely diagnosis and effective management for promising outcomes.

Working on the dirty side—the ipsilateral subclavian access for temporary pacing after lead extraction

Background

Temporary pacing is necessary in pacemaker‐dependent patients after transvenous lead extraction (TLE) for cardiac implantable electronic device infection. In case of unavailability of other accesses, we propose to use the ipsilateral subclavian access (ISA) combined with a standard permanent active fixation lead for the temporary pacemaker and present preliminary data.

Methods

We consecutively enrolled patients undergoing TLE who received a temporary pacemaker using the ISA between August 2016 and April 2020 at our centre.

Results

During the observation period, 36 patients undergoing TLE for pocket infection (72.2%), endocarditis (25.0%) or other causes received a temporary pacemaker over the ISA. Their mean age was 77.0 ± 10.7 years, and 13.9% were female. Complete TLE was achieved in 94.4%. There were no major periprocedural complications. Intra‐hospital mortality was 11.1%. Pocket revision was performed in 19.4%. During long‐term follow‐up (23 ± 13 months), 8.3% had a relapse of local pocket infection and 2.8% needed rehospitalization for reintervention.

Conclusions

Temporary pacing using a standard permanent active fixation lead using the ISA is a convenient alternative to conventional venous accesses. However, risks of implanting a lead into a previously infected area have to be taken into account.

Therapy and outcomes of cardiac implantable electronic devices infections

Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection causes significant morbidity and mortality without appropriate treatment. It can present as incisional infection, pocket infection, systemic CIED infection, or occult bacteraemia. Complete percutaneous CIED extraction (excepted in case of incisional infection) and appropriate antibiotic therapy are the two main pillars of therapy. Device reimplantation, if needed, should be delayed sufficiently to allow control of the infection. Here, we address the differences in prognosis according to the clinical scenario and the different treatment options.

Clinical Profile and Outcome of Patients with Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device-Related Infection

Fundamento

Houve aumento expressivo na incidência de infecções relacionadas a dispositivos cardíacos eletrônicos implantáveis (DCEI) nos últimos anos, com impacto na mortalidade.

Objetivos

Verificar a proporção de pacientes com infecção de DCEI e analisar seu perfil clínico, as variáveis relacionadas com a infecção e sua evolução.

Método

Estudo retrospectivo, observacional e longitudinal com 123 pacientes com infecção de DCEI entre 6.406 procedimentos. Foram usados os testes paramétricos, e o nível de significância adotado na análise estatística foi de 5%.

Resultados

A idade média dos pacientes foi de 60,1 anos, e 71 eram homens. A média de internação foi de 35,3 dias, e houve remoção total do sistema em 105 pacientes. Identificaram-se endocardite infecciosa (EI) e sepse em 71 e 23 pacientes, respectivamente. A mortalidade intra-hospitalar foi 19,5%. Houve associação entre EI e extrusão do gerador (17,0% vs. 19,5% nos grupos com e sem EI, respectivamente, p = 0,04; associação inversa) e sepse (15,4% vs. 3,2%, p = 0,01). Houve associação entre morte intra-hospitalar e EI (83,3% vs. 52,0% com e sem morte, respectivamente, p = 0,005) e sepse (62,5% vs. 8,1%, p < 0,0001). Foi dada alta hospitalar a 99 pacientes. Durante a média de seguimento clínico de 43,8 meses, a taxa de mortalidade foi de 43%, e 65,2% dos pacientes com sepse faleceram (p < 0,0001). A curva de sobrevida de Kaplan-Meier não indicou associação significante com sexo, agente etiológico, fração de ejeção, EI e modalidade de tratamento. A taxa de mortalidade foi de 32,8% entre os pacientes submetidos a reimplante de eletrodos por via endocárdica e 52,2% entre aqueles por via epicárdica (p = 0,04). Não houve influência da etiologia chagásica, a qual correspondeu a 44,7% das cardiopatias de base, quanto às variáveis clínicas e laboratoriais ou à evolução.

Conclusões

A taxa de infecção foi de 1,9%, com predomínio em homens. Houve associação entre mortalidade intra-hospitalar e EI e sepse. Após a alta hospitalar, a taxa de mortalidade anual foi de 11,8%, com influência de sepse durante a internação e o implante epicárdico. (Arq Bras Cardiol. 2021; [online].ahead print, PP.0-0)

Temporary external implantable cardioverter-defibrillator as a bridge to reimplantation after infected device extraction

Patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) and endovascular infection represent a difficult management group. The explantation of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) system deprives the patient of the protection against life-threatening ventricular tachyarrhythmias. In this study, we describe feasibility and clinical outcomes of bridging with temporary dual-coil ICD lead and external ICD following the extraction of a CIED due to endovascular infection and compare the performance of this approach to other available options.