Back to Search
Start Over
Leadless Pacemaker Implant in Patients with Pre-Existing Infections: Results from the Micra Post-Approval Registry
- Source :
- Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology, Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology, Wiley, 2019, ⟨10.1111/jce.13851⟩, Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology, 2019, ⟨10.1111/jce.13851⟩, El-Chami, M F, Johansen, J B, Zaidi, A, Faerestrand, S, Reynolds, D, Garcia-Seara, J, Mansourati, J, Pasquie, J L, McElderry, H T, Roberts, P R, Soejima, K, Stromberg, K & Piccini, J P 2019, ' Leadless pacemaker implant in patients with pre-existing infections : Results from the Micra postapproval registry ', Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 569-574 . https://doi.org/10.1111/jce.13851
- Publication Year :
- 2019
- Publisher :
- HAL CCSD, 2019.
-
Abstract
- Introduction: Leadless pacemakers may provide a safe and attractive pacing option to patients with cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection. We describe the characteristics and outcomes of patients with a recent CIED infection undergoing Micra implant attempt. Methods and Results: Patients with prior CIED infection and device explant with Micra implant within 30 days, were identified from the Micra post approval registry. Procedure characteristics and outcomes were summarized. A total of 105 patients with prior CIED infection underwent Micra implant attempt ≤30 days from prior system explant (84 [80%] pacemakers and 13 [12%] ICD/CRT-D). All system components were explanted in 93% of patients and explant occurred a median of 6 days before Micra implant, with 37% occurring on the day of Micra implant. Micra was successfully implanted in 99% patients, mean follow-up duration was 8.5 ± 7.1 months (range 0-28.5). The majority of patients (91%) received IV antibiotics preimplant, while 42% of patients received IV antibiotics postprocedure. The median length of hospitalization following Micra implant was 2 days (IQR, 1-7). During follow-up, two patients died from sepsis and four patients required system upgrade, of which two patients received Micra to provide temporary pacing support. There were no Micra devices explanted due to infection. Conclusion: Implantation of the Micra transcatheter pacemaker is safe and feasible in patients with a recent CIED infection. No recurrent infections that required Micra device removal were seen. Leadless pacemakers appear to be a safe pacing alternative for patients with CIED infection who undergo extraction.
- Subjects :
- Male
medicine.medical_specialty
Recurrent infections
Pacemaker, Artificial
Prosthesis-Related Infections
Time Factors
[SDV]Life Sciences [q-bio]
Length of hospitalization
030204 cardiovascular system & hematology
cardiac implantable electronic device infection
Sepsis
03 medical and health sciences
Clinical
0302 clinical medicine
Device removal
Risk Factors
Physiology (medical)
medicine
Humans
transcatheter pacemaker
In patient
030212 general & internal medicine
Registries
leadless pacemakers
Device Removal
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
business.industry
permanent pacing
Cardiac Pacing, Artificial
Pacemaker implant
Original Articles
Equipment Design
Leadless pacemakers
Length of Stay
Middle Aged
medicine.disease
3. Good health
Surgery
Anti-Bacterial Agents
[SDV] Life Sciences [q-bio]
Micra
Treatment Outcome
Original Article
Administration, Intravenous
Female
Implant
Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
business
Subjects
Details
- Language :
- English
- ISSN :
- 10453873 and 15408167
- Database :
- OpenAIRE
- Journal :
- Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology, Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology, Wiley, 2019, ⟨10.1111/jce.13851⟩, Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology, 2019, ⟨10.1111/jce.13851⟩, El-Chami, M F, Johansen, J B, Zaidi, A, Faerestrand, S, Reynolds, D, Garcia-Seara, J, Mansourati, J, Pasquie, J L, McElderry, H T, Roberts, P R, Soejima, K, Stromberg, K & Piccini, J P 2019, ' Leadless pacemaker implant in patients with pre-existing infections : Results from the Micra postapproval registry ', Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 569-574 . https://doi.org/10.1111/jce.13851
- Accession number :
- edsair.doi.dedup.....2b4069d5e4ad2f46af773a7e87020fe8