Why the study?
Increasing CIED infections require temporary pacing during explantation in pacemaker-dependent patients, and outcomes comparing single-procedure epicardial pacing against temporary transjugular pacing with delayed reimplantation were needed.
Does epicardial pacemaker implantation compared to temporary transjugular pacemaker reduce hospital stay and prevent reinfection in pacemaker-dependent patients undergoing explantation of infected CIEDs?
Does epicardial pacemaker implantation compared to temporary transjugular pacemaker reduce hospital stay and prevent reinfection in pacemaker-dependent patients undergoing explantation of infected CIEDs?
In pacemaker-dependent patients with CIED infections, a single-procedure epicardial pacemaker implantation reduces hospital length of stay compared to temporary transvenous pacing, with no observed reinfection risk.
Epicardial pacing may shorten stays in CIED infection; retrospective data leave open superiority to temporary pacing.
BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation is associated with an increase in CIED infection. For pacemaker-dependent patients, temporary pacemaker leads are implanted until infection remission, which allows new CIED implantation. We compared the outcome of pacemaker-dependent patients with infected CIED based on whether a combined single procedure of epicardial pacemaker implantation with system extraction or a temporary transjugular pacemaker implantation with interval system implantation was performed. METHODS: This retrospective study included pacemaker-dependent patients with CIED infection who were divided into two groups: the Tempo and Epi groups. The Tempo group received temporary transvenous pacemaker connected to an external pulse generator. After infection remission, a new permanent pacemaker was implanted, and the temporary pacemaker leads were removed. The Epi group received implantable epicardial right-ventricular pacemaker through infrasternal inferior pericardiotomy, and a permanent pulse generator was implanted through the same incision between the subcutaneous tissue and abdominal fascia. RESULTS: Sixty-six patients were included. Forty-two patients with epicardial pacemakers were discharged after 9.5 ± 8.8 days without infection of the newly implanted epicardial pacemaker. Patients with temporary transjugular pacemaker lead were discharged 23 ± 15 days after receiving permanent pacemakers. No serious complications were recorded in the Epi group. CONCLUSIONS: CIED infections in pacemaker-dependent patients can be treated through epicardial pacemaker implantation that allows early patient mobility and reduces hospital stay with no risk of epicardial pacemaker infection. Epicardial pacemakers can be used as a bridge until permanent intravenous CIED is implanted or as a replacement for permeant intravenous CIED.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Al‐Maisary et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: