Clinical Impact of the Incision of the Capsule Floor During Generator Replacement on Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infection Risk: A Single-Center Experience.
Umut Celikyurt, Burak Acar, Hacer Dogan, Ipek Celikyurt, Kaan Hanci, Ozlem Guler, Aysen Agacdiken, Ahmet Vural
{"title":"Clinical Impact of the Incision of the Capsule Floor During Generator Replacement on Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infection Risk: A Single-Center Experience.","authors":"Umut Celikyurt, Burak Acar, Hacer Dogan, Ipek Celikyurt, Kaan Hanci, Ozlem Guler, Aysen Agacdiken, Ahmet Vural","doi":"10.1111/jce.16695","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The fibrous capsule around cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) generators represents avascular tissue that could be colonized and provides the nidus for latent infection. The purpose of the study is to evaluate the effects of incision of the capsule floor at the lower and/or medial part at the time of generator replacement on the CIED infection and hematoma formation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This observational study with retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data included patients who underwent CIED generator replacement between January 2013 and January 2024. A total of 1059 consecutive patients were compared according to the incision of the capsule floor at the lower and/or medial part: 448 patients without (group 1) and 611 patients with an incision on the capsule floor (group 2).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifteen patients with CIED infection after generator replacement were identified. There were no significant differences between the two groups, except for a higher percentage of patients with number of previous procedures on pocket ≥ 2 (35% vs. 19.6%, p < 0.001), and NOAC use (10.6% vs. 6.7%, p = 0.027) in group 2. There was a lower infection rate in group 2 compared to group 1 (0.7% vs. 2.5%, p = 0.014). In multivariate analysis, independent predictors of CIED infection after generator replacement were replacement without an incision of the capsule floor (OR 4.384, 95% CI [1.355-14.189]; p = 0.014), and age< 65 years (OR 3.259, 95% CI [1.133-9.378]; p = 0.028).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Generator replacement without incision of the capsule floor during generator replacement was associated with increased CIED infection risk. To minimize CIED infection risk, capsule floor incision could be considered during generator replacement.</p>","PeriodicalId":15178,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jce.16695","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: The fibrous capsule around cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) generators represents avascular tissue that could be colonized and provides the nidus for latent infection. The purpose of the study is to evaluate the effects of incision of the capsule floor at the lower and/or medial part at the time of generator replacement on the CIED infection and hematoma formation.
Methods: This observational study with retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data included patients who underwent CIED generator replacement between January 2013 and January 2024. A total of 1059 consecutive patients were compared according to the incision of the capsule floor at the lower and/or medial part: 448 patients without (group 1) and 611 patients with an incision on the capsule floor (group 2).
Results: Fifteen patients with CIED infection after generator replacement were identified. There were no significant differences between the two groups, except for a higher percentage of patients with number of previous procedures on pocket ≥ 2 (35% vs. 19.6%, p < 0.001), and NOAC use (10.6% vs. 6.7%, p = 0.027) in group 2. There was a lower infection rate in group 2 compared to group 1 (0.7% vs. 2.5%, p = 0.014). In multivariate analysis, independent predictors of CIED infection after generator replacement were replacement without an incision of the capsule floor (OR 4.384, 95% CI [1.355-14.189]; p = 0.014), and age< 65 years (OR 3.259, 95% CI [1.133-9.378]; p = 0.028).
Conclusion: Generator replacement without incision of the capsule floor during generator replacement was associated with increased CIED infection risk. To minimize CIED infection risk, capsule floor incision could be considered during generator replacement.
导论:心脏植入式电子装置(CIED)发生器周围的纤维囊代表了可以定植的无血管组织,并为潜伏感染提供了病灶。本研究的目的是评估在发生器更换时在下部和/或内侧切开囊底对CIED感染和血肿形成的影响。方法:本观察性研究采用回顾性分析前瞻性收集的数据,包括2013年1月至2024年1月期间接受CIED发电机更换的患者。根据囊底下部和/或内侧切口连续比较1059例患者:无切口448例(组1),有切口611例(组2)。结果:15例患者在更换发电机后发生CIED感染。两组间无显著差异,除了既往手术次数≥2次的患者比例较高(35% vs. 19.6%, p)。结论:发生器置换术中未切口囊底的发生器置换术与CIED感染风险增加相关。为减少CIED感染的风险,在更换发电机时可考虑切开胶囊底板。
期刊介绍:
Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology (JCE) keeps its readership well informed of the latest developments in the study and management of arrhythmic disorders. Edited by Bradley P. Knight, M.D., and a distinguished international editorial board, JCE is the leading journal devoted to the study of the electrophysiology of the heart.