Results of endoscopic electrode removal surgery in patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices

Hai Son Dam, Cong Huu Nguyen1, , Tran Thuy Nguyen, Thanh Dat Pham, Hoang Nam Nguyen, Van Nghia Doan
1 E hospital

Main Article Content

Abstract

Introduction: The increasing popularity of permanent pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) has improved the quality of life and long-term prognosis of cardiovascular patients. However, there is also an increase in infections of cardiac implantable devices (CIEDs). The infection rate after the first implant is 4.82/1000 people, and after the device replacement is 12.12/1000. With the development of endoscopic techniques, a method of thoroughly treating infections of cardiac implantable devices is opened without increasing the severity of the patient’s condition.


Method: Cross-sectional study, 08 patients with pacemaker infection underwent endoscopic surgery at the Cardiovascular Center, E Hospital from January 2020 to July 2024.


Result: In 08 patients, the male ratio is mainly 06 patients, the oldest age was 85 years old and the youngest is 25 years old. There are 07 cases with permanent pacemaker implantation, 1 case of ICD placement Brugada syndrome. All cases have bacterial cultures: 05 patients have Staphylococcus aureus and 03 cases have cultured Staphylococcus epidermidis. All patients have pacemaker examination and underwent endoscopic surgery to remove the electrode. The average surgical time is 68,71± 18.3 minutes (97-40), in which 01 case has only electrode probe infection, the remaining cases has both the pacemaker and electrode probe infection. Most stable cases are discharged from hospital with an average time of 16,2± 7,8 days (11-30), 01 severe case due to sepsis in a patient with heart failure EF: 30%, kidney failure, diabetes, hypertension has to stay in treatment for additional 30 days.


Conclusion: Endoscopic electrode removal surgery in patients with pacemaker infection initially achieved good results, with low complications and mortality, but a larger number of patients and long-term follow-up and evaluation are needed.

Article Details

References

1. Abraham WT, Fisher WG, Smith AL, et al. Cardiac resynchronization in chronic heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2002;346(24):1845-1853. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa013168
2. Cleland JGF, Daubert JC, Erdmann E, et al. The Effect of Cardiac Resynchronization on Morbidity and Mortality in Heart Failure. N Engl J Med. 2005;352(15):1539-1549. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa050496
3. Moss AJ, Zareba W, Hall WJ, et al. Prophylactic implantation of a defibrillator in patients with myocardial infarction and reduced ejection fraction. N Engl J Med. 2002;346(12):877-883. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa013474
4. Bardy GH, Lee KL, Mark DB, et al. Amiodarone or an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator for congestive heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2005;352(3):225-237. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa043399
5. Dai M, Cai C, Vaibhav V, et al. Trends of Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Device Infection in 3 Decades: A Population-Based Study. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2019;5(9):1071-1080. doi:10.1016/j.jacep.2019.06.016
6. Greenspon AJ, Patel JD, Lau E, et al. 16-year trends in the infection burden for pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in the United States 1993 to 2008. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58(10):1001-1006. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2011.04.033
7. Kusumoto FM, Schoenfeld MH, Wilkoff BL, et al. 2017 HRS expert consensus statement on cardiovascular implantable electronic device lead management and extraction. Heart Rhythm. 2017;14(12):e503-e551. doi:10.1016/j.hrthm.2017.09.001
8. Nof E, Bongiorni MG, Auricchio A, et al. Comparison of outcomes in infected cardiovascular implantable electronic devices between complete, partial, and failed lead removal: an ESC-EHRA-EORP ELECTRa (European Lead Extraction ConTrolled) registry. Eur Eur Pacing Arrhythm Card Electrophysiol J Work Groups Card Pacing Arrhythm Card Cell Electrophysiol Eur Soc Cardiol. 2019;21(12):1876-1889. doi:10.1093/europace/euz269
9. Kiviniemi MS, Pirnes MA, Eränen HJ, Kettunen RV, Hartikainen JE. Complications related to permanent pacemaker therapy. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol PACE. 1999;22(5):711-720. doi:10.1111/j.1540-8159.1999.tb00534.x
10. Boink GJJ, Christoffels VM, Robinson RB, Tan HL. The past, present, and future of pacemaker therapies. Trends Cardiovasc Med. 2015;25(8):661-673. doi:10.1016/j.tcm.2015.02.005
11. Clémenty N, Fernandes J, Carion PL, et al. Pacemaker complications and costs: a nationwide economic study. J Med Econ. 2019;22(11):1171-1178. doi:10.1080/13696998.2019.1652186
12. Döring M, Richter S, Hindricks G. The Diagnosis and Treatment of Pacemaker-Associated Infection. Dtsch Arzteblatt Int. 2018;115(26):445-452. doi:10.3238/arztebl.2018.0445
13. Birnie DH, Wang J, Alings M, et al. Risk Factors for Infections Involving Cardiac Implanted Electronic Devices. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;74(23):2845-2854. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2019.09.060
14. Polyzos KA, Konstantelias AA, Falagas ME. Risk factors for cardiac implantable electronic device infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Eur Pacing Arrhythm Card Electrophysiol J Work Groups Card Pacing Arrhythm Card Cell Electrophysiol Eur Soc Cardiol. 2015;17(5):767-777. doi:10.1093/europace/euv053
15. Sohail MR, Uslan DZ, Khan AH, et al. Risk factor analysis of permanent pacemaker infection. Clin Infect Dis Off Publ Infect Dis Soc Am. 2007;45(2):166-173. doi:10.1086/518889
16. Nielsen JC, Gerdes JC, Varma N. Infected cardiac-implantable electronic devices: prevention, diagnosis, and treatment. Eur Heart J. 2015;36(37):2484-2490. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehv060