Therapy of Cardiac Device Pocket Infections with Vacuum-Assisted Wound Closure-Long-Term Follow-Up

Transvenous lead extraction versus surgical lead extraction or conservative treatment for cardiac implantable electronic device infections: Propensity score-weighted analyses of a nationwide claim-based database

INTRODUCTION

Infection is one of the most important complications associated with cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) therapy. The number of reports comparing the outcomes of transvenous lead extraction (TLE), surgical lead extraction, and conservative treatment for CIED infections using a real-world database is limited. This study investigated the association between the treatment strategies for CIED infections and their outcomes.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of 3605 patients with CIED infections admitted to 681 hospitals using a nationwide claim-based database collected between April 2012 and March 2018.

RESULTS

We divided the 3605 patients into TLE (n = 938 [26%]), surgical lead extraction (n = 182 [5.0%]), and conservative treatment (n = 2485 [69%]) groups. TLE was performed more frequently in younger patients and at larger hospitals (p for trend < .001 for both). The rate of TLE increased during the study period, whereas that of surgical lead extraction decreased (p for trend < .001 for both). TLE was associated with lower in-hospital mortality (vs. surgical lead extraction: odds ratio [OR], 0.20; 95% CI, 0.06-0.70; vs. conservative treatment: OR, 0.45; 95% CI: 0.22-0.94) and lower 30-day readmission rates (vs. surgical lead extraction: OR, 0.18; 95% CI: 0.06-0.56; vs. conservative treatment: OR, 0.06; 95% CI, 0.03-0.13) in propensity score-weighted analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Only 26% of patients hospitalized for CIED infections received TLE. TLE was associated with significantly lower in-hospital mortality and 30-day recurrence rates than surgical lead extraction and conservative treatment, suggesting that TLE should be more widely recommended as a first-line treatment for CIED infections.

"Shift and cover technique": conservative management of complications for the rescue of S-ICD subcutaneous implantable defibrillator systems

BACKGROUND

The risk of complications has been shown to be lower with subcutaneous implantable defibrillator (S-ICD) than with conventional ICDs. Given the low frequency of complications, experience of how to manage them is limited. In this paper, we describe generator- and lead-related complications recorded in a series of S-ICD patients, and we propose our conservative approach to managing them.

METHODS

The study cohort consisted of S-ICD patients who were referred to our institution owing to generator- or lead-related complications requiring surgical intervention. With our "shift and cover" approach, the system component involved is moved from its original position to an alternative, more protected location. In the case of the generator, this involves moving it to an intermuscular pocket. In the case of infections at the parasternal scar, the electrode sleeve is moved away from its original location, stitched, and then covered with the muscular fascia.

RESULTS

Fourteen S-ICD patients were referred to our institution owing to system-related complications. Complications involved the generator in 7 cases (deep pocket infections with erosion, extrusion, or pain), the lead in 5 cases (parasternal infections at the xyphoid incision site), and both the generator and the lead in 2 cases. Complications were managed without completely removing the device and resolved in a single surgical session with no intraoperative complications. During defibrillation testing, the first shock at 65 J was effective in all patients. The shock impedance after revision was significantly lower than that measured during first implantation (59 ± 10 Ohm versus 86 ± 24 Ohm, P = 0.013). In all cases, the cosmetic result was satisfactory. No complications or recurrent infections were reported at the 12-month follow-up visit.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed conservative approach was successful in managing S-ICD complications. The revision procedure allowed to optimize the system configuration in terms of the defibrillation vector, resulting in lower shock impedance values and better device positioning.

An Alternative to Transvenous Lead Extraction in Selected Patients with CIED Infections—A Retrospective Outcome Study

Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implants are rising in an older, more co-morbid population. The prevalence of CIED infection ranges from 1–4%. Whilst complete extraction of all transvenous hardware is recommended for infected, eroded, or pre-eroding CIEDs, this approach is not without risk and may be unacceptable to some patients. Long-term data on a more conservative strategy is lacking. We report on our experience of conservative management with pocket revision as a primary strategy in carefully selected patients. Method: A retrospective review of all CIED revision procedures was undertaken at a large tertiary center, over a 7-year period, with a mean follow-up timeframe of 39 months. Results: A total of 86 patients underwent 96 revision procedures; 7 patients required further revisions and 13 went on to undergo CIED extraction by the end of the follow-up period. The overall rate of mortality at 12 months was 8.1%, increasing to 24.4% at the end of the follow-up period. Conclusion: Our data provide important outcome information on an alternative strategy to lead extraction in carefully selected patients where the risk of extraction is perceived to be unacceptable. The absence of systemic infection appears to predict better outcomes than previously reported, and over two-thirds of patients remained complication-free at 12 months.

Local device infection successfully treated without pacemaker removal in a neonate: a case report

AIMS

Local device infection is a serious complication, especially in neonates. Complete device removal is the gold standard treatment for cardiac device infection; however, in selected cases alternative strategies could be adopted. We describe a case of a 14-day-old neonate, weighing 2.5kg, who had undergone epicardial double chamber pacemaker implantation for a congenital complete atrioventricular block. The generator pocket was created in the epigastric area below the rectus abdominis. At six days after implantation, pocket infection was found; blood cultures and the transoesophageal echocardiogram were normal. Due to the low weight of the neonate, and the limited possibility of finding a new comfortable site for housing the generator far from the infected area, we opted for a conservative strategy. We successfully applied a combination of antibiotic therapy, a vacuum-assisted wound closure system (KCI, Germany) for 40 days, and then skin transfer flap from the right flank without device removal. At one-year follow-up there were no local or systemic signs of infection.

Early modified primary closure for treatment of cardiac implantable electronic device pocket infections

BACKGROUND

Guidance for wound management of the vacated generator pocket in cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) pocket infections after removal of all hardware and tissue debridement is limited. The typical surgical technique for management of a purulent wound is to allow healing by secondary intention. An alternative approach uses negative pressure wound therapy with or without delayed primary closure. While effective in managing infection, these approaches increase hospital length of stay and costs. We present our experience with a third option: modified early primary wound closure over a suction device.

METHODS

All patients with CIED pocket infections who presented to our institution between September 2018 and October 2020 underwent extraction of hardware and modified primary wound closure over a negative pressure Jackson-Pratt drain. Length of hospital and postoperative stay, complications, and recurrent infections were recorded.

RESULTS

During the study period, 14 patients underwent modified primary wound closure for CIED pocket infections. Mean length of hospital stay was 6.64 days ± 4.01 days (standard deviation [SD]). Mean postoperative length of stay was 3.92 ± 2.21 days (SD). Two patients (both on intravenous heparin for mechanical valve prostheses) required re-exploration for bleeding. No patients developed recurrent infection at a mean follow up of 363 ± 245 days (SD).

CONCLUSION

Based on our experience, early modified primary wound closure for CIED pocket infections appears to be safe and allows for prompt discharge with no observed re-infections.

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.

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.

Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infections

Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infections are complex medical problems that are increasingly encountered. They are associated with significant morbidity and mortality with tremendous economic cost. The current review will emphasize the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of this clinical entity using the relatively limited evidence that is currently available. Because there is a paucity of high quality evidence regarding prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of CIED infections, this review will attempt to summarize the best evidence as well as to suggest, when possible, paradigms for care. The topic of CIED infections is a dynamic one as the scope of CIED continues to widen. Furthermore, there are promising advancements in CIED technology which may help reduce its occurrence the future. Unfortunately, significant gaps in knowledge remain, and definitive recommendations regarding CIED infections and future studies should be directed at improving our ability to prevent infections.

Successful conservative management of a permanent pacemaker pocket infection: a less invasive approach

We present a successful conservative management strategy for a frail elderly patient with a cardiac resynchronisation pacemaker who presented with evidence of an Enterobacter cloacae pacemaker pocket infection. A device washout and debridement procedure was performed, with reburial of the device in a new prepectoral pocket and creation of a closed-loop continuous antibiotic infusion into the infected pacemaker pocket. This was followed by a 6-week course of ambulatory intravenous antibiotic therapy. This conservative management strategy avoided the need for a more invasive and high-risk full device extraction, which the patient clearly stated he did not wish to have. Up-to-date consensus management guidelines recommend extraction of the entire implanted system in this situation; however, in this case we demonstrate an alternative conservative management option, which may be suitable for frail elderly and comorbid patients or for patients who decline device extraction.

Guidelines for the diagnosis, prevention and management of implantable cardiac electronic device infection. Report of a joint Working Party project on behalf of the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (BSAC, host organization), British Heart Rhythm Society (BHRS), British Cardiovascular Society (BCS), British Heart Valve Society (BHVS) and British Society for Echocardiography (BSE)

Infections related to implantable cardiac electronic devices (ICEDs), including pacemakers, implantable cardiac defibrillators and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices, are increasing in incidence in the USA and are likely to increase in the UK, because more devices are being implanted. These devices have both intravascular and extravascular components and infection can involve the generator, device leads and native cardiac structures or various combinations. ICED infections can be life-threatening, particularly when associated with endocardial infection, and all-cause mortality of up to 35% has been reported. Like infective endocarditis, ICED infections can be difficult to diagnose and manage. This guideline aims to (i) improve the quality of care provided to patients with ICEDs, (ii) provide an educational resource for all relevant healthcare professionals, (iii) encourage a multidisciplinary approach to ICED infection management, (iv) promote a standardized approach to the diagnosis, management, surveillance and prevention of ICED infection through pragmatic evidence-rated recommendations, and (v) advise on future research projects/audit. The guideline is intended to assist in the clinical care of patients with suspected or confirmed ICED infection in the UK, to inform local infection prevention and treatment policies and guidelines and to be used in the development of educational and training material by the relevant professional societies. The questions covered by the guideline are presented at the beginning of each section.