Kang Wanqiu, Chen Xiaoming, Li Zicheng, Zhang Aidong, Liu Jingwen, Yu Liqiong, Wen Yingzhen
The First Clinical Medical College of Jinan University, Guangzhou, 510630, China.
Department of Cardiology, Guangzhou Overseas Chinese Hospital, The First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University, Guangzhou, 510630, China.
J Med Case Rep. 2019 Mar 3;13(1):49. doi: 10.1186/s13256-019-1987-x.
For patients with complicated generator pocket infection, expert consensuses universally advocate complete device and leads removal followed by delayed replacement on the contralateral side. We cured our patient by partial generator removal and reimplantation of sterilized pulse generator on the ipsilateral side. We also performed a literature review about incomplete removal therapy for the management of cardiac implantable electronic device infection.
An 86-year-old Chinese Han man was diagnosed as having third-degree atrioventricular block and received a permanent double-chamber pacemaker in his left prepectoral area 15 years ago. Nine years later, the entire system was removed because of confirmed infection, and a new device was reimplanted in the contralateral area. He developed skin necrosis around the pacemaker pocket after 1 year, and his generator was renewed without leads extraction at another medical center. He was subsequently admitted several times for surgical tissue debridement at another institution due to extended skin necrosis. At the time of the new admission, he had severe infection, heart failure, and hypoalbuminemia. He was diagnosed as having complicated pacemaker pocket infection. Our preferred treatment strategy was for complete removal of both the generator and transvenous pacing leads, and we intended to implant an epicardial pacemaker in our patient if necessary. However, he rejected the treatment strategy and firmly refused to replace his generator. We had to attempt a novel pacemaker-preserving strategy considering our patient's severe comorbidities. Finally, we cured him by partial generator removal and reimplantation of the sterilized pulse generator on the ipsilateral side. There was no sign of wound dehiscence or infection during a 6-month follow-up.
We would posit that partial removal of infected generators combined with conservative treatment may be a proper treatment of complicated generator pocket infection, especially for those who are susceptible to cardiac complications. Reimplantation of a sterilized pulse generator on the ipsilateral side may be an option if patients reject a new device and contralateral vascular condition is not really suitable. Opting for such treatment should be at the consideration of the primary care physician based on the condition of the patient.
对于发生器囊袋复杂感染的患者,专家共识普遍主张完全移除装置和导线,随后在对侧进行延迟更换。我们通过部分移除发生器并在同侧重新植入消毒后的脉冲发生器治愈了我们的患者。我们还对心脏植入式电子装置感染的不完全移除治疗进行了文献综述。
一名86岁的中国汉族男性15年前被诊断为三度房室传导阻滞,并在左胸前区植入了永久性双腔起搏器。9年后,由于确诊感染,整个系统被移除,并在对侧区域重新植入了新装置。1年后,他的起搏器囊袋周围出现皮肤坏死,在另一家医疗中心更换了发生器,未拔除导线。随后,由于皮肤坏死扩大,他在另一家机构多次因手术清创入院。此次新入院时,他患有严重感染、心力衰竭和低蛋白血症。他被诊断为复杂的起搏器囊袋感染。我们首选的治疗策略是完全移除发生器和经静脉起搏导线,如有必要,打算为患者植入心外膜起搏器。然而,他拒绝了该治疗策略,并坚决拒绝更换发生器。考虑到患者严重的合并症,我们不得不尝试一种新的保留起搏器策略。最后,我们通过部分移除发生器并在同侧重新植入消毒后的脉冲发生器治愈了他。在6个月的随访期间,没有伤口裂开或感染的迹象。
我们认为,部分移除感染的发生器并结合保守治疗可能是复杂发生器囊袋感染的一种合适治疗方法,特别是对于那些易发生心脏并发症的患者。如果患者拒绝新装置且对侧血管状况不太合适,在同侧重新植入消毒后的脉冲发生器可能是一种选择。选择这种治疗方法应基于患者的病情由初级保健医生考虑决定。