Risk of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infection after Early versus Delayed Lead Repositioning.

N. Schvartz, Arian Haidary, Reza Wakili, Florian Hecker, J. Kupusovic, E. Zsigmond, M. Miklos, László Sághy, Tamas Szili-Torok, J. Erath, M. Vámos
{"title":"Risk of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infection after Early versus Delayed Lead Repositioning.","authors":"N. Schvartz, Arian Haidary, Reza Wakili, Florian Hecker, J. Kupusovic, E. Zsigmond, M. Miklos, László Sághy, Tamas Szili-Torok, J. Erath, M. Vámos","doi":"10.3390/jcdd11040117","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"(1) Background: Early reintervention increases the risk of infection of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). Some operators therefore delay lead repositioning in the case of dislocation by weeks; however, there is no evidence to support this practice. The aim of our study was to evaluate the impact of the timing of reoperation on infection risk. (2) Methods: The data from consecutive patients undergoing lead repositioning in two European referral centers were retrospectively analyzed. The odds ratio (OR) of CIED infection in the first year was compared among patients undergoing early (≤1 week) vs. delayed (>1 week to 1 year) reoperation. (3) Results: Out of 249 patients requiring CIED reintervention, 85 patients (34%) underwent an early (median 2 days) and 164 (66%) underwent a delayed lead revision (median 53 days). A total of nine (3.6%) wound/device infections were identified. The risk of infection was numerically lower in the early (1.2%) vs. delayed (4.9%) intervention group yielding no statistically significant difference, even after adjustment for typical risk factors for CIED infection (adjusted OR = 0.264, 95% CI 0.032-2.179, p = 0.216). System explantation/extraction was necessary in seven cases, all being revised in the delayed group. (4) Conclusions: In this bicentric, international study, delayed lead repositioning did not reduce the risk of CIED infection.","PeriodicalId":502527,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cardiovascular Development and Disease","volume":"13 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cardiovascular Development and Disease","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/jcdd11040117","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

(1) Background: Early reintervention increases the risk of infection of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). Some operators therefore delay lead repositioning in the case of dislocation by weeks; however, there is no evidence to support this practice. The aim of our study was to evaluate the impact of the timing of reoperation on infection risk. (2) Methods: The data from consecutive patients undergoing lead repositioning in two European referral centers were retrospectively analyzed. The odds ratio (OR) of CIED infection in the first year was compared among patients undergoing early (≤1 week) vs. delayed (>1 week to 1 year) reoperation. (3) Results: Out of 249 patients requiring CIED reintervention, 85 patients (34%) underwent an early (median 2 days) and 164 (66%) underwent a delayed lead revision (median 53 days). A total of nine (3.6%) wound/device infections were identified. The risk of infection was numerically lower in the early (1.2%) vs. delayed (4.9%) intervention group yielding no statistically significant difference, even after adjustment for typical risk factors for CIED infection (adjusted OR = 0.264, 95% CI 0.032-2.179, p = 0.216). System explantation/extraction was necessary in seven cases, all being revised in the delayed group. (4) Conclusions: In this bicentric, international study, delayed lead repositioning did not reduce the risk of CIED infection.
早期与延迟重置导联后的心脏植入式电子设备感染风险。
(1) 背景:早期再介入会增加心脏植入式电子设备(CIED)的感染风险。因此,一些操作者会将脱位情况下的导联重新定位时间推迟数周;然而,没有证据支持这种做法。我们的研究旨在评估重新手术的时机对感染风险的影响。(2)方法:回顾性分析了在欧洲两家转诊中心接受导联重新定位的连续患者的数据。比较了早期(≤1周)与延迟(>1周至1年)再次手术患者第一年CIED感染的几率比(OR)。(3)结果:在249名需要进行CIED再介入手术的患者中,85名患者(34%)接受了早期手术(中位数为2天),164名患者(66%)接受了延迟换导联手术(中位数为53天)。共发现 9 例(3.6%)伤口/设备感染。早期干预组(1.2%)与延迟干预组(4.9%)的感染风险在数字上较低,即使调整了CIED感染的典型风险因素(调整后OR = 0.264,95% CI 0.032-2.179,p = 0.216),也没有统计学意义上的显著差异。有七例病例需要进行系统拆卸/拔除,所有病例均在延迟治疗组中进行了修正。(4) 结论:在这项双中心国际研究中,延迟导联重新定位并未降低 CIED 感染风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信