Why the study?
Infections related to cardiac implantable electronic devices are increasing and lead-related infective endocarditis can be difficult to diagnose and manage.
Very late lead-related infective endocarditis can occur following procedures currently deemed low risk, suggesting that endocarditis prophylaxis guidelines may need to be reconsidered for certain patient categories.
Late CIED endocarditis can occur >10 years post-implant; this case extends timing awareness but leaves open prospective diagnostic validation.
The number of infections related to cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) has increased as the number of devices implanted around the world has grown exponentially in recent years. CIED complications can sometimes be difficult to diagnose and manage, as in the case of lead-related infective endocarditis. We present the case of a 48-year-old male diagnosed with Staphylococcus aureus device-related infective endocarditis, 12 years after the implant of a single chamber pacemaker. A recent history of the patient includes two urinary catheterizations due to obstructive uropathy in the context of a prostatic adenoma, 2 months previously, both without antibiotic prophylaxis; no other possible entry sites were found and no history of other invasive procedures. After initiation of antibiotic therapy according to antibiotic susceptibility testing, we decided to remove the right ventricular passive fixation lead along with the vegetation and pacemaker generator; because of severe lead adhesions in the costoclavicular region, and especially in the right ventricle, we needed mechanical sheaths to remove the abundant fibrous tissue that encompassed the lead. After a difficult, but successful, lead extraction along with a large vegetation and 6 weeks' antibiotic therapy, the clinical and biological evolution was favorable, without reappearance of symptoms. While very late lead endocarditis is a rarity, late lead-related infective endocarditis (more than 12 months elapsed since implant) is not an exception; this is why we find that endocarditis prophylaxis should be reconsidered in certain patient categories, our patient being proof that procedures with neglectable endocarditis risk according to the guidelines can lead to bacterial endocarditis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ursaru et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: