Search

Summary Objectives The use of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED; pacemakers, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators [ICD], cardiac re-synchronized therapy [CRT]) implantation, one essential treatment for cardiac arrhythmias, is increasing. Infectious complications related to implants are the main reason for device removal and patient morbidity. We sought to identify the incidence of infectious complications among patients with cardiac device implantation and analyze the risk factors for infectious complications. Methods A retrospective analysis was conducted of 1307 patients (61.5±14.2 years-old, 49.6% male) with cardiac device implantation from January 1990 to April 2013. We analyzed the incidence of infectious complications during the follow-up period. To investigate risk factors associated with infectious complications, we conducted a 1:2 matched case-control study of patients with infectious complications and controls without infectious complications who had the same implantation period and physician. Results Among 1307 patients, 12 had a confirmed device-related infection: 7 with a pocket infection and 5 with infective endocarditis. Over a total of 9091.9 device-years, the incidence of infectious complications was 1.3/1000 device-years, based on the 12 patients with an infection. ICD (5.1/1000 device-year) had a higher incidence of infectious complications than other cardiac devices, and no infectious complications were observed among patients with CRT implantation. Mean duration from the time of implantation to infection was 2.02±1.65 years. In a multivariate analysis, the number of prior procedures including wound revision or scar revision was an independent risk factor for infectious complications (OR=10.88, 95% CI 1.11->999, p=0.040). Conclusions Infection was a rare complication of cardiac device implantation, but repeated procedures were associated with infectious complications.

Background Magnetic fields may potentially interfere with the function of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices. Sterile magnetic drapes used to hold surgical instruments are often placed on the patient’s thorax, and they are likely to interfere with the function of these devices. Methods Thirty patients were recruited to compare a new prototype surgical magnetic drape (LT10G™ by Menodys) made with bottom-isolated ferrite magnets to the Covidien magnetic drape we used in a previous study. Twenty additional patients were recruited to compare the prototype drape with four commercially available surgical magnetic drapes. Results Magnetic interference was found in 33 of the 50 total patients (70 %) when the Covidien drape was placed over the pacemaker. Of the 20 additional patients, 5 patients (25 %) displayed magnetic interference with a second type of surgical magnetic drape. A third magnetic drape caused interference in one patient (5 %), whereas a larger drape of the same model did not interfere in any patient. No patients demonstrated magnetic interference with the prototype drape. Conclusion Bottom isolation of magnets in the prototype magnetic drape (LT10G™) used during surgery prevents magnetic interference in all patients when placed over the pacemaker. Three of the four commercially available magnetic drapes tested demonstrated magnetic interference. Flipping the prototype drape is not recommended as it may expose non-isolated magnets to the cardiovascular implantable electronic device. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12938-016-0205-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.