El-Chami Mikhael F, Bonner Matt, Holbrook Reece, Stromberg Kurt, Mayotte Jane, Molan Amy, Sohail M Rizwan, Epstein Laurence M
Division of Cardiology, Section of Electrophysiology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
Medtronic, plc, Mounds View, Minnesota.
Heart Rhythm. 2020 Aug;17(8):1393-1397. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2020.03.019. Epub 2020 Apr 2.
Pacemaker-related infections remain a constant concern due to increased risk of patient morbidity and mortality. Although transvenous pacemakers are expected to have an infection rate ranging from 0.77% to 2.08%, no cases of leadless pacemaker infection have been reported in clinical trials enrolling more than 3000 patients. Many potential reasons why leadless pacemakers may be resistant to infection include the absence of a subcutaneous pocket and leads, reduced skin and glove contact, size, location, and device material. This review summarizes the current state of evidence regarding the apparent infection resistance of leadless pacemakers.
由于患者发病和死亡风险增加,起搏器相关感染一直令人担忧。尽管经静脉起搏器的感染率预计在0.77%至2.08%之间,但在纳入3000多名患者的临床试验中,尚未报告无导线起搏器感染的病例。无导线起搏器可能抗感染的许多潜在原因包括没有皮下囊袋和导线、皮肤与手套接触减少、尺寸、位置和设备材料。本综述总结了关于无导线起搏器明显抗感染性的现有证据状况。