Attempted salvage of infected cardiovascular implantable electronic devices: Are there clinical factors that predict success?

Infections of cardiac implantable electronic devices and how to improve transvenous lead extraction by the virtual reality

Introduction

Infections in cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) are increasing over time and associated with substantially mortality and healthcare costs. The best approach is the complete removal of the system by transvenous lead extraction (TLE). However, when leads are more than 10 years old, this technique requires considerable expertise and failures with the result of abandoned leads or serious complications may occur. The aim of this study is to describe our experience using virtual and mixed reality in the preoperative planning of complex cases.

Patients and methods

Consecutive patients from a referral centre with CIED infections in which TLE was judged difficult. Synchronized computed tomography (CT) scan images were processed and transferred to a fully immersive virtual reality room and also to the operative room (mixed reality) for better guidance during the extracting procedure.

Results

Ten patients (seven with local and three with systemic infections) were preoperative evaluated. Processed images and virtual reality showed intense adherences of the leads to the veins, right ventricle, and right atrium endocardium and between them that preclude a difficult extraction and required a carefully planning and sometimes a different technical approach. The anticipated difficulty was confirmed by the higher times of fluoroscopy. All leads were extracted and no complications were registered.

Conclusions

Preoperative planning is essential for evaluation of TLE difficulty and prevention of unexpected situations. Virtual reality seems an estimable aid for operators in planning difficult cases and also an excellent tool for teaching.

Supplementary information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12055-023-01663-9.

Use of Taurolidine in a Patient With a Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Protrusion

We report the successful salvage of cardiac implantable electronic device pulse generator protrusion sealed by the surrounding skin in a frail patient presenting 5 months after the last surgical revision. (Level of Difficulty: Advanced.).

Low Utilization of Lead Extraction Among Patients With Infective Endocarditis and Implanted Cardiac Electronic Devices

BACKGROUND

Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED)-associated infections are associated with substantial morbidity, mortality, and costs. Guidelines have cited endocarditis as a Class I indication for transvenous lead removal/extraction (TLE) among patients with CIEDs.

OBJECTIVES

The authors sought to study utilization of TLE among hospital admissions with infective endocarditis using a nationally representative database.

METHODS

Using the Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD), 25,303 admissions for patients with CIEDs and endocarditis between 2016 and 2019 were evaluated on the basis of International Classification of Diseases-10th Revision, Clinical-Modification (ICD-10-CM) codes.

RESULTS

Among admissions for patients with CIEDs and endocarditis, 11.5% were managed with TLE. The proportion undergoing TLE increased significantly from 2016 to 2019 (7.6% vs 14.9%; P trend < 0.001). Procedural complications were identified in 2.7%. Index mortality was significantly lower among patients managed with TLE (6.0% vs 9.5%; P < 0.001). Presence of Staphylococcus aureus infection, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, and large hospital size were independently associated with TLE management. TLE management was less likely with older age, female sex, dementia, and kidney disease. After adjustment for comorbidities, TLE was independently associated with significantly lower odds of mortality (adjusted OR: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.37-0.60 by multivariable logistic regression, and adjusted OR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.40-0.66 by propensity score matching).

CONCLUSIONS

Utilization of lead extraction among patients with CIEDs and endocarditis is low, even in the presence of low rates of procedural complications. Lead extraction management is associated with significantly lower mortality, and its use has trended upward between 2016 and 2019. Barriers to TLE for patients with CIEDs and endocarditis require investigation.

[Pacemaker infection in fragile patients]

Complications associated with cardiac implantable electric devices (CIED) are manifold. They include lead dislocation, twiddler's syndrome, device malfunction, haematoma formation and infection. Infections can be divided into acute, subacute and late infections. Both the time of onset and the route of infection play a crucial role. The consequences of a CIED infection are devastating. The most modern treatment methods include the removal of all implanted implants. If complete removal is not followed in the event of infection, there is a high rate of infection recurrence. Open thoracic surgery to remove infected CIED hardware has been replaced by percutaneous lead extraction procedures. Lead extraction requires specialised equipment and expertise and may not be readily available or feasible for some patients. Each extraction procedure is associated with a small risk of potentially fatal complications (e.g. cardiac avulsion, vascular avulsion, haemothorax and cardiac tamponade). For these reasons, the performance of such procedures should be limited to centres with adequate equipment and experience. Successful salvage of CIED systems with in situ sterilisation of contaminated hardware has been reported. In our case, we report the successful salvage of an exposed generator in a frail patient treated more than 5 years after the last generator replacement.

Radionuclide Imaging of Infective Endocarditis

Infective endocarditis (IE) is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Early diagnosis is crucial for adequate patient management. Due to difficulties in the diagnosis, a multidisciplinary discussion in addition to the integration of clinical signs, microbiology data, and imaging data is used. Imaging, including echocardiography, molecular imaging techniques, and coronary CT angiography (CTA) is central to detect infections involving heart valves and implanted cardiovascular devices, also allowing for early detection of septic emboli and metastatic. This article describes the main clinical application of white blood cell SPECT/CT and [¹⁸F]FDG-PET/CT and CTA in IE and infections associated with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices.

Regional Antibiotic Delivery for Implanted Cardiovascular Electronic Device Infections

BACKGROUND

Present guidelines endorse complete removal of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (pacemakers/defibrillators), including extraction of all intracardiac electrodes, not only for systemic infections, but also for localized pocket infections.

OBJECTIVES

The authors evaluated the efficacy of delivering continuous, in situ-targeted, ultrahigh concentration of antibiotics (CITA) into the infected subcutaneous device pocket, obviating the need for device/lead extraction.

METHODS

The CITA group consisted of 80 patients with pocket infection who were treated with CITA during 2007-2021. Of them, 9 patients declined lead extraction because of prohibitive operative risk, and 6 patients had questionable indications for extraction. The remaining 65 patients with pocket infection, who were eligible for extraction, but opted for CITA treatment, were compared with 81 patients with pocket infection and similar characteristics who underwent device/lead extraction as primary therapy.

RESULTS

A total of 80 patients with pocket infection were treated with CITA during 2007-2021. CITA was curative in 85% (n = 68 of 80) of patients, who remained free of infection (median follow-up 3 years [IQR: 1.0-6.8 years]). In the case-control study of CITA vs device/lead extraction, cure rates were higher after device/lead extraction than after CITA (96.2% [n = 78 of 81] vs 84.6% [n = 55 of 65]; P = 0.027). However, rates of serious complications were also higher after extraction (n = 12 [14.8%] vs n = 1 [1.5%]; P = 0.005). All-cause 1-month and 1-year mortality were similar for CITA and device/lead extraction (0.0% vs 3.7%; P = 0.25 and 12.3% vs 13.6%; P = 1.00, respectively). Extraction was avoided in 90.8% (n = 59 of 65) of extraction-eligible patients treated with CITA.

CONCLUSIONS

CITA is a safe and effective alternative for patients with pocket infection who are unsuitable or unwilling to undergo extraction. (Salvage of Infected Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices [CIED] by Localized High-Dose Antibiotics; NCT01770067).

Strategies and outcomes of patients with severely reduced ejection fraction (≤15%) undergoing transvenous lead extraction: A single-center experience

BACKGROUND

Patients with severely reduced ejection fraction (SREF ≤15%) are deferred from transvenous lead extraction (TLE) owing to fear of intraoperative hemodynamic collapse. When these patients require lead extraction, their management options are limited, and they suffer from high morbidity and mortality. Left ventricular (LV) assist devices provide intraoperative hemodynamic support and facilitate TLE, enabling lifesaving interventions.

OBJECTIVE

We present our experience of performing TLE in 245 patients with SREF. Additionally, we report outcomes of 8 patients who received LV support during TLE.

METHODS

Between January 2008 and January 2022, we performed TLE in 245 patients with stage D heart failure, SREF, and class I or II indications for extraction. Primary (clinical success and in-hospital mortality) and secondary (length of stay and procedure-associated complications) outcomes were compared between patients with SREF and patients in our registry undergoing extraction with EF < 15%. A subgroup analysis was performed in the SREF group to evaluate outcomes of 8 patients who underwent extraction with LV assist devices.

RESULTS

In patients with SREF, clinical success was high (97.6%) and mortality was low (5.3%). There were no statistically significant differences in primary outcomes between groups. Similarly, there were no significant differences in procedural complications between groups. In the SREF group, there were no significant differences in outcomes between the 8 patients undergoing TLE with LV assist devices and patients that did use LV assist devices.

CONCLUSION

Lead extraction in patients with SREF can be performed safely and effectively. Adopting a few simple steps, including the early initiation of LV support, can overcome myocardial impairment in patients who decompensate.

Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices Infection Assessment, Diagnosis and Management: A Review of the Literature

The use of increasingly complex cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) has increased exponentially in recent years. One of the most serious complications in terms of mortality, morbidity and financial burden is represented by infections involving these devices. They may affect only the generator pocket or be generalised with lead-related endocarditis. Modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors have been identified and they can be associated with patient or procedure characteristics or with the type of CIED. Pocket and systemic infections require a precise evaluation and a specialised treatment which in most cases involves the removal of all the components of the device and a personalised antimicrobial therapy. CIED retention is usually limited to cases where infection is unlikely or is limited to the skin incision site. Optimal re-implantation timing depends on the type of infection and on the results of microbiological tests. Preventive strategies, in the end, include antibiotic prophylaxis before CIED implantation, the possibility to use antibacterial envelopes and the prevention of hematomas. The aim of this review is to investigate the pathogenesis, stratification, diagnostic tools and management of CIED infections.

Salvage of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Pocket Infection with Skin Erosion in Frail 92-Year-Old

We reported the novel use of a taurolidine-containing antimicrobial solution in the successful salvage of a partially exposed and polymicrobially infected cardiac implantable electronic device pulse generator in a frail patient unfit for lead extraction. The old, salvaged device was entirely internalized, and there were no signs of recurrent infection at 9 months follow-up.

Salvage of infected cardiac implantable electronic device with taurolidine—a case report

Background

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are commonly used to treat cardiac arrhythmias and prevent sudden cardiac death. Complications of CIED therapy include component malfunction, lead dislodgement, skin erosion and infection. Infection can result in significant morbidity and even mortality. The recommended treatment of CIED skin erosion and infection is urgent complete device extraction. When this is infeasible due to patient or resource factors, an attempt could be made to salvage the exposed or infected CIED system by debridement of all the infected necrotic tissues and irrigation of the pocket and contaminated hardware with anti-septic/antibiotic solutions. Taurolidine, when dissolved in an aqueous solution, produces a broad spectrum of antimicrobial actions and may be used as a novel irrigation agent during CIED salvage.

Case presentation

This report describes the first use of a taurolidine-containing solution for pocket irrigation and in situ hardware sterilisation that resulted in the successful salvage of a CIED infected with multi-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis.

Conclusions

A taurolidine-containing antimicrobial solution can be a safe and effective alternative to traditional antiseptic/antibiotic solutions for pocket irrigation and in situ hardware sterilisation during CIED salvage, and may produce better clinical outcomes by some unique mechanisms of action such as inhibition of biofilm formation and neutralisation of endotoxins, with little risk of inducing and encountering resistance.

Biofilm-Related Infections in Gram-Positive Bacteria and the Potential Role of the Long-Acting Agent Dalbavancin

Infections caused by Gram-positive bacteria are a major public health problem due to their increasing resistance to antibiotics. Staphylococcus and Enterococcus species' resistance and pathogenicity are enhanced by their ability to form biofilm. The biofilm lifestyle represents a significant obstacle to treatment because bacterial cells become highly tolerant to a wide range of antimicrobial compounds normally effective against their planktonic forms. Thus, novel therapeutic strategies targeting biofilms are urgently needed. The lipoglycopeptide dalbavancin is a long-acting agent for treating acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections caused by a broad range of Gram-positive pathogens. Recent studies have shown promising activity of dalbavancin against Gram-positive biofilms, including methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA), methicillin-resistant S. epidermidis (MRSE), and vancomycin-susceptible enterococci. This review outlines the mechanisms regulating biofilm development in Staphylococcus and Enterococcus species and the clinical impact of biofilm-related infections. In addition, it discusses the clinical implications and potential therapeutic perspectives of the long-acting drug dalbavancin against biofilm-forming Gram-positive pathogens.

European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) international consensus document on how to prevent, diagnose, and treat cardiac implantable electronic device infections-endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS), International Society for Cardiovascular Infectious Diseases (ISCVID) and the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS)

Pacemakers, implantable cardiac defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices are potentially life-saving treatments for a number of cardiac conditions, but are not without risk. Most concerning is the risk of a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection, which is associated with significant morbidity, increased hospitalizations, reduced survival, and increased healthcare costs. Recommended preventive strategies such as administration of intravenous antibiotics before implantation are well recognized. Uncertainties have remained about the role of various preventive, diagnostic, and treatment measures such as skin antiseptics, pocket antibiotic solutions, anti-bacterial envelopes, prolonged antibiotics post-implantation, and others. Guidance on whether to use novel device alternatives expected to be less prone to infections and novel oral anticoagulants is also limited, as are definitions on minimum quality requirements for centres and operators and volumes. Moreover, an international consensus document on management of CIED infections is lacking. The recognition of these issues, the dissemination of results from important randomized trials focusing on prevention of CIED infections, and observed divergences in managing device-related infections as found in an European Heart Rhythm Association worldwide survey, provided a strong incentive for a 2019 International State-of-the-art Consensus document on risk assessment, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of CIED infections.

European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) international consensus document on how to prevent, diagnose, and treat cardiac implantable electronic device infections-endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS), International Society for Cardiovascular Infectious Diseases (ISCVID) and the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS)

Pacemakers, implantable cardiac defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices are potentially life-saving treatments for a number of cardiac conditions, but are not without risk. Most concerning is the risk of a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection, which is associated with significant morbidity, increased hospitalizations, reduced survival, and increased healthcare costs. Recommended preventive strategies such as administration of intravenous antibiotics before implantation are well recognized. Uncertainties have remained about the role of various preventive, diagnostic, and treatment measures such as skin antiseptics, pocket antibiotic solutions, anti-bacterial envelopes, prolonged antibiotics post-implantation, and others. Guidance on whether to use novel device alternatives expected to be less prone to infections and novel oral anticoagulants is also limited, as are definitions on minimum quality requirements for centres and operators and volumes. Moreover, an international consensus document on management of CIED infections is lacking. The recognition of these issues, the dissemination of results from important randomized trials focusing on prevention of CIED infections, and observed divergences in managing device-related infections as found in an European Heart Rhythm Association worldwide survey, provided a strong incentive for a 2019 International State-of-the-art Consensus document on risk assessment, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of CIED infections.

European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) international consensus document on how to prevent, diagnose, and treat cardiac implantable electronic device infections-endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS), International Society for Cardiovascular Infectious Diseases (ISCVID), and the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS)

Pacemakers, implantable cardiac defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices are potentially lifesaving treatments for a number of cardiac conditions but are not without risk. Most concerning is the risk of a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection, which is associated with significant morbidity, increased hospitalizations, reduced survival, and increased health care costs. Recommended preventive strategies such as administration of intravenous antibiotics before implantation are well-recognized. Uncertainties have remained about the role of various preventive, diagnostic, and treatment measures such as skin antiseptics, pocket antibiotic solutions, antibacterial envelopes, prolonged antibiotics post-implantation, and others. When compared with previous guidelines or consensus statements, the present consensus document gives guidance on the use of novel device alternatives, novel oral anticoagulants, antibacterial envelopes, prolonged antibiotics post-implantation, as well as definitions on minimum quality requirements for centres and operators and volumes. The recognition that an international consensus document focused on management of CIED infections is lacking, the dissemination of results from new important randomized trials focusing on prevention of CIED infections, and observed divergences in managing device-related infections as found in an European Heart Rhythm Association worldwide survey, provided a strong incentive for a Novel 2019 International State-of-the-art Consensus document on risk assessment, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of CIED infections.

Cardiovascular implantable electronic device infections due to enterococcal species: Clinical features, management, and outcomes

BACKGROUND

Enterococcal cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) infections are not well characterized.

METHODS

Data from the Multicenter Electrophysiologic Device Infection Cohort, a prospective study of CIED infections, were used for descriptive analysis of adults with enterococcal CIED infections.

RESULTS

Of 433 patients, 21 (4.8%) had enterococcal CIED infection. Median age was 71 years. Twelve patients (57%) had permanent pacemakers, five (24%) implantable cardioverter defibrillators, and four (19%) biventricular devices. Median time from last procedure to infection was 570 days. CIED-related bloodstream infections occurred in three patients (14%) and 18 (86%) had infective endocarditis (IE), 14 (78%) of which were definite by the modified Duke criteria. IE cases were classified as follows: valvular IE, four; lead IE, eight; both valve and lead IE, six. Vegetations were demonstrated by transesophageal echocardiography in 17 patients (81%). Blood cultures were positive in 19/19 patients with confirmed results. The most common antimicrobial regimen was penicillin plus an aminoglycoside (33%). Antibiotics were given for a median of 43 days. Only 14 patients (67%) underwent device removal. There was one death during the index hospitalization with four additional deaths within 6 months (overall mortality 24%). There were no relapses.

CONCLUSIONS

Enterococci caused 4.8% of CIED infections in our cohort. Based on the late onset after device placement or manipulation, most infections were likely hematogenous in origin. IE was the most common infection syndrome. Only 67% of patients underwent device removal. At 6 months follow-up, no CIED infection relapses had occurred, but overall mortality was 24%.

Infection Management

Cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and the indications for their use have significantly risen over the past decades to include patients who are older with more medical comorbidities. Predictably, the rates of CIED infection have increased substantially. CIED infection is associated with high morbidity, mortality, and financial costs. This article discusses the appropriate management of CIED infections, which is imperative to limit the problems associated with infection.

Unusual conservative treatment of a complicated pacemaker pocket infection: a case report

Background

For patients with complicated generator pocket infection, expert consensuses universally advocate complete device and leads removal followed by delayed replacement on the contralateral side. We cured our patient by partial generator removal and reimplantation of sterilized pulse generator on the ipsilateral side. We also performed a literature review about incomplete removal therapy for the management of cardiac implantable electronic device infection.

Case presentation

An 86-year-old Chinese Han man was diagnosed as having third-degree atrioventricular block and received a permanent double-chamber pacemaker in his left prepectoral area 15 years ago. Nine years later, the entire system was removed because of confirmed infection, and a new device was reimplanted in the contralateral area. He developed skin necrosis around the pacemaker pocket after 1 year, and his generator was renewed without leads extraction at another medical center. He was subsequently admitted several times for surgical tissue debridement at another institution due to extended skin necrosis. At the time of the new admission, he had severe infection, heart failure, and hypoalbuminemia. He was diagnosed as having complicated pacemaker pocket infection. Our preferred treatment strategy was for complete removal of both the generator and transvenous pacing leads, and we intended to implant an epicardial pacemaker in our patient if necessary. However, he rejected the treatment strategy and firmly refused to replace his generator. We had to attempt a novel pacemaker-preserving strategy considering our patient’s severe comorbidities. Finally, we cured him by partial generator removal and reimplantation of the sterilized pulse generator on the ipsilateral side. There was no sign of wound dehiscence or infection during a 6-month follow-up.

Conclusions

We would posit that partial removal of infected generators combined with conservative treatment may be a proper treatment of complicated generator pocket infection, especially for those who are susceptible to cardiac complications. Reimplantation of a sterilized pulse generator on the ipsilateral side may be an option if patients reject a new device and contralateral vascular condition is not really suitable. Opting for such treatment should be at the consideration of the primary care physician based on the condition of the patient.