Key result
EV-ICD implantation succeeds after infected device extraction without reinfection or displacement at 2 months.
Why the study?
Post-implantation infections of pacemakers or defibrillators represent a serious complication, impacting patient morbidity and mortality.
Case Report (n=1)
No
EV-ICD implantation may be a safe and effective alternative for high-risk patients following extraction of an infected cardiac implantable electronic device.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
EV-ICD implantation after infected CIED extraction may be feasible; this Level 5 case leaves open prospective safety and efficacy data.
Post-implantation infections of pacemakers or defibrillators represent a serious complication, impacting patient morbidity and mortality. We present a case involving a 75-year-old male with multiple comorbidities who developed pocket erosion of a previously implanted biventricular defibrillator, complicated by Staphylococcus haemolyticus infection. Following device extraction and targeted antibiotic therapy, an extravascular implantable cardioverter defibrillator (EV-ICD; Aurora EV-ICD) was implanted. The procedure was successfully performed, with a 2-month follow-up showing no signs of infection or device displacement. EV-ICD appears to be a safe and effective alternative for high-risk patients, minimizing complications associated with vascular access and endocardial lead implantation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Coppola et al. (2025) conducted a case report in Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection (n=1). Extravascular implantable cardioverter defibrillator (EV-ICD) was evaluated on Procedural success and absence of infection or device displacement at follow-up. Implantation of an extravascular implantable cardioverter defibrillator (EV-ICD) was successful after extraction of an infected device, with no signs of reinfection or displacement at two months.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: