Zeitler Emily P, Patel Divyang, Hasselblad Vic, Sanders Gillian D, Al-Khatib Sana M
Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina; Duke University Medical System, Durham, North Carolina.
Duke University Medical System, Durham, North Carolina.
Heart Rhythm. 2015 Jul;12(7):1558-64. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2015.04.003. Epub 2015 Apr 3.
The number of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) recalls and advisories has increased over the past 3 decades, yet no consensus exists on how to best manage patients with these CIEDs, partially because rates of complications from prophylactic replacement are unknown.
The purpose of this study was to establish rates of complications when recalled CIED generators are replaced prophylactically.
We searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register for reports of prophylactic replacement of recalled CIED generators. Studies with <20 subjects were excluded. We then conducted a meta-analysis of qualifying studies to determine the rates of combined major complications, mortality, and reoperation.
We identified 7 citations that met our inclusion criteria and reported ≥1 end-points of interest. Four were single center, and 3 were multicenter. Six studies collected data retrospectively (n = 1213) and 1 prospectively (n = 222). Using a random effects model to combine data from all included studies, the rate of major complications was 2.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.0%-4.5%). Combining data from 6 studies reporting mortality and reoperation, the rates were 0.5% (95% CI 0.1%-0.9%) and 2.5% (95% CI 0.8%-4.5%), respectively.
Prophylactic replacement of recalled CIED generators is associated with a low mortality rate but nontrivial rates of other major complications similar to those reported when CIED generators are replaced for other reasons. Thus, when considering replacing a recalled CIED generator, known risks of elective generator replacement likely apply and can be weighed against risks associated with device failure.
在过去30年中,心脏植入式电子设备(CIED)召回和咨询的数量有所增加,但对于如何最佳管理使用这些CIED的患者尚无共识,部分原因是预防性更换的并发症发生率尚不清楚。
本研究的目的是确定预防性更换召回的CIED发生器时的并发症发生率。
我们在MEDLINE和Cochrane对照试验注册库中搜索预防性更换召回的CIED发生器的报告。排除受试者少于20例的研究。然后,我们对符合条件的研究进行荟萃分析,以确定主要并发症、死亡率和再次手术的综合发生率。
我们确定了7篇符合纳入标准并报告了≥1个感兴趣终点的文献。4篇为单中心研究,3篇为多中心研究。6项研究回顾性收集数据(n = 1213),1项前瞻性收集数据(n = 222)。使用随机效应模型合并所有纳入研究的数据,主要并发症发生率为2.5%(95%置信区间[CI] 1.0%-4.5%)。合并6项报告死亡率和再次手术的研究数据,发生率分别为0.5%(95% CI 0.1%-0.9%)和2.5%(95% CI 0.8%-4.5%)。
预防性更换召回的CIED发生器与低死亡率相关,但其他主要并发症的发生率不低,与因其他原因更换CIED发生器时报告的发生率相似。因此,在考虑更换召回的CIED发生器时,已知的选择性更换发生器的风险可能适用,可以与设备故障相关的风险进行权衡。