Key result
A conservative two-stage surgical revision technique was safe and effective in 96% (24/25) of elderly patients with CIED pocket infections and no systemic signs who refused complete extraction.
Why the study?
Complete system removal is the gold standard for CIED infections, but alternative conservative surgical approaches were needed for elderly patients without systemic infection who refuse extraction.
Does a conservative surgical system revision approach safely treat CIED pocket infections in elderly patients without systemic infection who refuse extraction?
Observational (n=25)
Does a conservative surgical system revision approach safely treat CIED pocket infections in elderly patients without systemic infection who refuse extraction?
A two-stage conservative surgical revision technique may be a feasible and safe alternative to complete system extraction for localized CIED pocket infections in elderly patients without systemic involvement.
May be considered in select elderly patients refusing extraction; leaves open prospective validation of safety.
BACKGROUND: The gold standard to treat cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) infections is the complete system removal. The aim of this retrospective analysis is to assess the feasibility and safety of an alternative conservative surgical system revision approach, to be applied in elderly patients who refused the extraction procedure, in case of no signs of systemic infection. METHODS: Between May 2009 and January 2019, we performed system revision of 25 patients (15 men and 10 women, median age 81 [IQ: 75-85] years) with negative blood culture, no signs of vegetation, who experienced CIED infections. RESULTS: In all patients the following surgical procedure was applied: the pocket was opened, the wound's necrotic tissue was dissected en bloc; fibrotic tissue was excised. The pocket was washed with hydrogen peroxide and saline solution. The pocket was then closed without implanting the device and left with a continuous infusion of antibiotics and normal saline for 4 days. Subsequently the new generator was implanted, possibly in a different pocket than the previous one. All patients underwent a median follow up of 24 [IQ: 14-34] months. In 24 patients out of the 25 observed the procedure was safe and effective, except for one patient who needed the extraction. CONCLUSIONS: The two-stage surgical revision technique is feasible and safe. It may be considered for elderly patients who refused extraction and presented no signs of systemic infection or in some categories of patients. In case of failure of the procedure, subsequent treatment with complete extraction of the system would not be precluded.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bisignani et al. (2019) conducted an observational in Cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) infections (n=25). Conservative two-stage surgical system revision was evaluated on Safety and efficacy (procedure success without extraction). A conservative two-stage surgical revision technique was safe and effective in 96% (24/25) of elderly patients with CIED pocket infections and no systemic signs who refused complete extraction.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: