Why the study?
The specific role of the various pathogens causing cardiac implantable electronic device-related infections requires further understanding.
Does the type of pathogen influence the clinical course and long-term prognosis in patients undergoing transvenous lead extraction for CIED infections?
Does the type of pathogen influence the clinical course and long-term prognosis in patients undergoing transvenous lead extraction for CIED infections?
In patients undergoing transvenous lead extraction for CIED infections, non-staphylococcal Gram-positive pathogens are associated with the worst long-term prognosis despite MSSA and MSSE being the most common.
Non-staphylococcal Gram-positive pathogens may warrant closer post-extraction surveillance; leaves open whether pathogen-specific strategies improve survival.
The specific role of the various pathogens causing cardiac implantable electronic devices-(CIEDs)-related infections requires further understanding. The data of 1241 patients undergoing transvenous lead extraction because of lead-related infective endocarditis (LRIE-773 patients) and pocket infection (PI-468 patients) in two high-volume centers were analyzed. Clinical course and long-term prognosis according to the pathogen were assessed. Blood and generator pocket cultures were most often positive for methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA: 22.19% and 18.13% respectively), methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus epidermidis (MSSE: 17.39% and 15.63%) and other staphylococci (11.59% and 6.46%). The worst long-term prognosis both in LRIE and PI subgroup was in patients with infection caused by Gram-positive microorganisms, other than staphylococci. The most common pathogens causing CIED infection are MSSA and MSSE, however, the role of other Gram-positive bacteria and Gram-negative organisms is also important. Comparable, high mortality in patients with LRIE and PI requires further studies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Polewczyk et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: