Camboni Daniele, Wollmann Christian G, Löher Andreas, Gradaus Rainer, Scheld Hans Heinrich, Schmid Christof
Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, University Hospital, Muenster, Germany.
Ann Thorac Surg. 2008 Jan;85(1):50-5. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2007.03.048.
To remove failing or infected implantable cardioverter defibrillator leads, percutaneous techniques and open heart surgery are two common approaches. However, well-defined indications for either technique are not available. We summarize our experience with implantable cardioverter defibrillator system explantation using open heart surgery and percutaneous lead removal.
A total of 1,391 transvenously introduced implantable cardioverter defibrillator systems were implanted during the analyzed time interval from January 1995 to June 2005 in our institution. In 21 patients (1.5%), open heart surgery for implantable cardioverter defibrillator lead and generator explantation was applied (group A), and in 53 patients (3.8%), a percutaneous lead removal was possible (group B). The log-rank test was used to calculate differences in survival between both patient groups, and the Student's t test was applied for differences in nonlethal complications.
The 30-day, 6-month, 12-month, and 5-year survival rates were 91%, 91%, 81%, and 71%, respectively, for group A patients, and 100%, 100%, 94%, and 78%, respectively, for group B patients, which was not statistically different (p = 0.11). After open heart surgery, survival was comparable for cases with lead removal because of lead infection and those with lead malfunction (p = 0.28); however, patients with open heart surgery had a longer hospital stay (p = 0.03). Student's t test revealed no statistical difference in nonlethal complications between both patient groups (p = 0.37).
As open heart surgery yielded similar results with regard to survival and complications, implantable cardioverter defibrillator lead removal using extracorporeal circulation may be well justified as a last therapeutic option, eg, in case of large bacterial vegetations.
为移除功能失效或感染的植入式心脏复律除颤器电极导线,经皮技术和心脏直视手术是两种常用方法。然而,对于这两种技术均缺乏明确的适应症。我们总结了使用心脏直视手术移除植入式心脏复律除颤器系统及经皮移除电极导线的经验。
在1995年1月至2005年6月的分析时间段内,我们机构共植入了1391例经静脉引入的植入式心脏复律除颤器系统。21例患者(1.5%)接受了用于移除植入式心脏复律除颤器电极导线和发生器的心脏直视手术(A组),53例患者(3.8%)成功进行了经皮电极导线移除(B组)。采用对数秩检验计算两组患者生存率的差异,采用学生t检验计算非致命并发症的差异。
A组患者的30天、6个月、12个月和5年生存率分别为91%、91%、81%和71%,B组患者分别为100%、100%、94%和78%,差异无统计学意义(p = 0.11)。心脏直视手术后,因电极导线感染而移除电极导线的病例与因电极导线故障而移除电极导线的病例生存率相当(p = 0.28);然而,接受心脏直视手术的患者住院时间更长(p = 0.03)。学生t检验显示两组患者非致命并发症的差异无统计学意义(p = 0.37)。
由于心脏直视手术在生存率和并发症方面产生了相似的结果,在体外循环下移除植入式心脏复律除颤器电极导线作为最后的治疗选择可能是合理的,例如在存在大量细菌性赘生物的情况下。