Pacemaker pocket infection: Innovative conservative treatment in elderly patients with no signs of systemic infection. Issue 10 (3rd September 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Bisignani, Antonio; De Bonis, Silvana; Mancuso, Luigi; Ceravolo, Gianluca; Bisignani, Giovanni
• Is Part Of: Pacing and clinical electrophysiology. Volume 42:Issue 10(2019)
• Page Start: 1340
• Page End: 1346
• Publication Date: 2019-09-03
• Subjects: antibiotics -- conservative approach -- ICD -- pacemaker -- pocket infection; Cardiac pacing -- Periodicals; Electrophysiology -- Periodicals; 617.4120645
• DOI: 10.1111/pace.13787
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0147-8389

Abstract

Abstract: Background: The gold standard to treat cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) infections is the complete system removal. The aim of this retrospective analysis is to assess the feasibility and safety of an alternative conservative surgical system revision approach, to be applied in elderly patients who refused the extraction procedure, in case of no signs of systemic infection. Methods: Between May 2009 and January 2019, we performed system revision of 25 patients (15 men and 10 women, median age 81 [IQ: 75‐85] years) with negative blood culture, no signs of vegetation, who experienced CIED infections. Results: In all patients the following surgical procedure was applied: the pocket was opened, the wound's necrotic tissue was dissected en bloc; fibrotic tissue was excised. The pocket was washed with hydrogen peroxide and saline solution. The pocket was then closed without implanting the device and left with a continuous infusion of antibiotics and normal saline for 4 days. Subsequently the new generator was implanted, possibly in a different pocket than the previous one. All patients underwent a median follow up of 24 [IQ: 14‐34] months. In 24 patients out of the 25 observed the procedure was safe and effective, except for one patient who needed the extraction. Conclusions: The two‐stage surgical revision technique is feasible and safe. It may be considered for elderly patients who refused extraction and presented no signs of systemic infection or in some categories of patients. In case of failure of the procedure, subsequent treatment with complete extraction of the system would not be precluded.