Survival after transvenous lead extraction was similar between patients with lead-related infective endocarditis and pocket infection at a median of 816 days (78.1% vs 81.3%; P=0.791).
Cohort (n=107)
No
Does the prognosis after transvenous lead extraction differ between patients with lead-related infective endocarditis and those with pocket infection?
Transvenous lead extraction in patients with lead-related infective endocarditis has a favorable prognosis comparable to those with pocket infections, supporting its strong recommendation.
Absolute Event Rate: 78.1% vs 81.3%
p-value: p=0.791
Abstract Background The increase in the use of cardiac implantable electronic devices ( CIED s) has been associated with an increase in CIED ‐related infections. Transvenous lead extraction is safe and effective for patients with CIED ‐related infections; however, the mortality rate in these patients is high. The prognosis after transvenous lead extraction in Japanese patients, especially those with lead‐related infective endocarditis, has not been evaluated. Then, the purpose of this study is to clarify the prognosis after transvenous lead extraction in Japanese patients with CIED ‐related infections at a single Japanese center. Methods A total of 107 patients who underwent transvenous lead extraction were retrospectively reviewed. The patients were divided into a lead‐related infective endocarditis group (n = 32) and a pocket infection group (n = 75). Procedure success rate and prognosis after lead extraction were evaluated between the two groups. Results Procedure success rate was not significantly different between the groups. There were no deaths associated with the procedure or with infection. The survival rate was not significantly different at 1 year or at a median of 816 days (lead‐related infective endocarditis vs pocket infection; 93.7% vs 94.7%, P = 1.000; 78.1% vs 81.3%, P = 0.791) Time to reimplantation and duration of hospital stay and antibiotics therapy were significantly longer for patients with lead‐related infective endocarditis. Conclusion In this study, the prognosis for patients with lead‐related infective endocarditis after transvenous lead extraction was favorable. Thus, extraction should be strongly recommended, even if the general condition of the patient is poor.
Nishii et al. (Fri,) conducted a cohort in Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) infection (n=107). Lead-related infective endocarditis vs. Pocket infection was evaluated on Survival rate at a median of 816 days (p=0.791). Survival after transvenous lead extraction was similar between patients with lead-related infective endocarditis and pocket infection at a median of 816 days (78.1% vs 81.3%; P=0.791).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: