Key result
Case report describes an isolated EV-ICD infection sparing a co-implanted leadless pacemaker.
Why the study?
Traditional transvenous ICD systems carry substantial procedural and long-term risks primarily due to intravascular leads, with infections associated with significant morbidity and mortality.
Case Report (n=1)
This case highlights the possibility of an isolated infection in an extravascular ICD system sparing a concurrent leadless pacemaker.
May permit sparing leadless pacemaker in isolated extravascular ICD infection; leaves open optimal extraction strategies.
Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) have been central in the prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) for over three decades (1–3). Despite their proven efficacy, traditional transvenous ICD (TV-ICD) systems carry substantial procedural and long-term risks, primarily due to the presence of intravascular leads (4,5). These complications mainly include lead malfunction, venous thrombosis, valvular injury and infection. Although relatively infrequent (0.6-1.3%), TV-ICD infections often require complete system removal and are associated with significant morbidity and mortality (6,7).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Deschamps et al. (2026) conducted a case report in Extravascular implantable cardioverter-defibrillator infection (n=1). Extravascular implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and leadless pacemaker was evaluated. A unique case report describes an isolated extravascular implantable cardioverter-defibrillator infection that occurred without the involvement of a co-implanted leadless pacemaker.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: