Evaluation of safety and feasibility of leadless pacemaker implantation following the removal of an infected pacemaker.

IF 1.3
Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE Pub Date : 2021-10-01 Epub Date: 2021-09-05 DOI:10.1111/pace.14346
Jianghua Zhang, Long He, Qiang Xing, Xianhui Zhou, Yaodong Li, Ling Zhang, Yanmei Lu, Zukela Tuerhong, Xu Yang, Baopeng Tang
{"title":"Evaluation of safety and feasibility of leadless pacemaker implantation following the removal of an infected pacemaker.","authors":"Jianghua Zhang,&nbsp;Long He,&nbsp;Qiang Xing,&nbsp;Xianhui Zhou,&nbsp;Yaodong Li,&nbsp;Ling Zhang,&nbsp;Yanmei Lu,&nbsp;Zukela Tuerhong,&nbsp;Xu Yang,&nbsp;Baopeng Tang","doi":"10.1111/pace.14346","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Leadless pacemakers provide safe and effective pacing options for patients with device-related infections. This study was aimed at observing and evaluating the safety and feasibility of extracting an infected pacemaker device followed by the implantation of a leadless pacemaker in the same location for patients without systemic infection.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Between December 2019 and September 2020, following a well-planned re-implantation strategy, pacemaker electrodes were removed from patients with device infection and leadless pacemakers were immediately implanted at our center. The patients were then followed up for up to 10 months to assess the safety and practicality of the procedure.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Pacemaker electrode removal and immediate leadless pacemaker implantation were successfully achieved in eight patients with pocket infection. After a minimum follow-up period of 1 month and a maximum follow-up of 10 months, the pacing parameters for the patients remained stable and there was no infection at the original capsular bag or in the leadless pacemaker.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Direct implantation of a leadless pacemaker is safe and feasible for patients with local infection of the pacing system after removal of the electrode as an alternative to a bridge period with a temporary pacemaker. This strategy may be a better option for pacing-dependent patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":520740,"journal":{"name":"Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE","volume":" ","pages":"1711-1716"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/pace.14346","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/pace.14346","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/9/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

Background: Leadless pacemakers provide safe and effective pacing options for patients with device-related infections. This study was aimed at observing and evaluating the safety and feasibility of extracting an infected pacemaker device followed by the implantation of a leadless pacemaker in the same location for patients without systemic infection.

Methods: Between December 2019 and September 2020, following a well-planned re-implantation strategy, pacemaker electrodes were removed from patients with device infection and leadless pacemakers were immediately implanted at our center. The patients were then followed up for up to 10 months to assess the safety and practicality of the procedure.

Results: Pacemaker electrode removal and immediate leadless pacemaker implantation were successfully achieved in eight patients with pocket infection. After a minimum follow-up period of 1 month and a maximum follow-up of 10 months, the pacing parameters for the patients remained stable and there was no infection at the original capsular bag or in the leadless pacemaker.

Conclusion: Direct implantation of a leadless pacemaker is safe and feasible for patients with local infection of the pacing system after removal of the electrode as an alternative to a bridge period with a temporary pacemaker. This strategy may be a better option for pacing-dependent patients.

移除感染的起搏器后植入无铅起搏器的安全性和可行性评估。
背景:无铅起搏器为设备相关感染患者提供了安全有效的起搏选择。本研究旨在观察和评估在无全身感染的患者中取出感染的起搏器,然后在同一位置植入无导联起搏器的安全性和可行性。方法:在2019年12月至2020年9月期间,根据精心规划的再植入策略,从设备感染的患者身上取出起搏器电极,并立即在我中心植入无导线起搏器。然后对患者进行长达10个月的随访,以评估该手术的安全性和实用性。结果:8例口袋感染患者均成功切除起搏器电极并立即植入无导联起搏器。经过最短1个月和最长10个月的随访,患者的起搏参数保持稳定,原囊袋和无导联起搏器均未发生感染。结论:对于取下电极后起搏系统局部感染的患者,直接植入无导线起搏器是安全可行的,可替代临时起搏器的桥接期。这种策略对于起搏依赖患者可能是一个更好的选择。
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信