Reimplantation and Repeat Infection After Cardiac-Implantable Electronic Device Infections: Experience From the MEDIC (Multicenter Electrophysiologic Device Infection Cohort) Database

Background— Infection is a serious complication of cardiovascular-implantable electronic device implantation and necessitates removal of all hardware for optimal treatment. Strategies for reimplanting hardware after infection vary widely and have not previously been analyzed using a large, multicenter study. Methods and Results— The MEDIC (Multicenter Electrophysiologic Device Infection Cohort) prospectively enrolled subjects with cardiovascular-implantable electronic device infections at multiple institutions in the United States and abroad between 2009 and 2012. Reimplantation strategies were evaluated overall, and every patient who relapsed within 6 months was individually examined for clinical information that could help explain the negative outcome. Overall, 434 patients with cardiovascular-implantable electronic device infections were prospectively enrolled at participating centers. During the initial course of therapy, complete device removal was done in 381 patients (87.8%), and 220 of them (57.7%) were ultimately reimplanted with new devices. Overall, the median time between removal and reimplantation was 10 days, with an interquartile range of 6 to 19 days. Eleven of the 434 patients had another infection within 6 months, but only 4 of them were managed with cardiovascular-implantable electronic device removal and reimplantation during the initial infection. Thus, the repeat infection rate was low (1.8%) in those who were reimplanted. Patients who retained original hardware had a 11.3% repeat infection rate. Conclusions— Our study findings confirm that a broad range of reimplant strategies are used in clinical practice. They suggest that it is safe to reimplant cardiac devices after extraction of previously infected hardware and that the risk of a second infection is low, regardless of reimplant timing.

[1]  R. Carrillo,et al.  Substernal implantation of a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in a patient with preexisting Hemodialysis Reliable Outflow graft , 2016, HeartRhythm case reports.

[2]  Stephan B. Danik,et al.  Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infections , 2016, Current Cardiology Reports.

[3]  J. Healey,et al.  Clinically Significant Pocket Hematoma Increases Long-Term Risk of Device Infection: BRUISE CONTROL INFECTION Study. , 2016, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[4]  C. Tschabrunn,et al.  Same-day contralateral implantation of a permanent device after lead extraction for isolated pocket infection. , 2014, Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[5]  H. Reichenspurner,et al.  Transcutaneous lead implantation connected to an externalized pacemaker in patients with implantable cardiac defibrillator/pacemaker infection and pacemaker dependency. , 2013, Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[6]  R. Carrillo,et al.  Management of cardiac device-related infections: a review of protocol-driven care. , 2013, International journal of cardiology.

[7]  D. Krummen,et al.  Utility and safety of temporary pacing using active fixation leads and externalized re-usable permanent pacemakers after lead extraction. , 2013, Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[8]  Gilbert Habib,et al.  Long-term outcomes following infection of cardiac implantable electronic devices: a prospective matched cohort study , 2012, Heart.

[9]  M. Schalij,et al.  Cardiac device infections are associated with a significant mortality risk. , 2012, Heart rhythm.

[10]  C. Tseng,et al.  Timing of the most recent device procedure influences the clinical outcome of lead-associated endocarditis results of the MEDIC (Multicenter Electrophysiologic Device Infection Cohort). , 2012, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[11]  M. Chung,et al.  Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Device Replacement Infections and Prevention: Results from the REPLACE Registry , 2012, Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE.

[12]  Walter R Wilson,et al.  Update on cardiovascular implantable electronic device infections and their management: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. , 2010, Circulation.

[13]  Maria Grazia Bongiorni,et al.  Transvenous lead extraction: Heart Rhythm Society expert consensus on facilities, training, indications, and patient management: this document was endorsed by the American Heart Association (AHA). , 2009, Heart rhythm.

[14]  David L Hayes,et al.  Management and outcome of permanent pacemaker and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator infections. , 2007, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[15]  S. Saba,et al.  Rising rates of cardiac rhythm management device infections in the United States: 1996 through 2003. , 2006, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[16]  V. Parsonnet,et al.  One Stage Side‐to‐Side Replacement of Infected Pulse Generators and Leads , 2006, Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE.

[17]  V. Fowler,et al.  Proposed modifications to the Duke criteria for the diagnosis of infective endocarditis. , 2000, Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.