Why the study?
Does the reuse of infected cardiac rhythm management devices prevent infection, unexpected battery depletion, or device malfunction in patients with infected CRMDs compared to implantation of new devices?
Population
212 patients who had infected cardiac rhythm management devices removed at a single center between 2007 and…
Comparison
Reimplantation of the same infected cardiac… vs Implantation of a new cardiac rhythm management…
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
mean 3.52 years (interquartile range: 2.1-4.7 years)
Authors
Loading...
May support reuse of infected CRMDs in resource-limited settings; leaves open need for randomized confirmation before practice change.
Does the reuse of infected cardiac rhythm management devices prevent infection, unexpected battery depletion, or device malfunction in patients with infected CRMDs compared to implantation of new devices?
Reuse of infected cardiac rhythm management devices in the same patients is noninferior to the implantation of new devices, offering a viable strategy in resource-limited settings.
Ze et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: