Suppr超能文献

感染性装置拔除后的感染修复:三种治疗策略分析及一年随访

Infection remediation after septic device extractions: analysis of three treatment strategies including a 1-year follow-up.

作者信息

Burger Heiko, Strauß Mona, Chung Da-Un, Richter Manfred, Ziegelhöffer Tibor, Hakmi Samer, Reichenspurner Hermann, Choi Yeong-Hoon, Pecha Simon

机构信息

Department of Cardiac Surgery, Kerckhoff-Klinik, Bad Nauheim, Germany.

Campus Kerckhoff-Klinik, Justus-Liebig-University Gießen, Bad Nauheim, Germany.

出版信息

Front Cardiovasc Med. 2024 Jan 11;10:1342886. doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2023.1342886. eCollection 2023.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

In CIED infections, all device material needs to be removed. But, especially in pacemaker-dependent patients it is often not possible to realize a device-free interval for infection remediation. In those patients, different treatment options are available, however the ideal solution needs still to be defined.

METHODS

This retrospective analysis includes 190 patients undergoing CIED extractions due to infection. Three different treatment algorithms were analyzed: Group 1 included 89 patients with system removal only (System removal group). In Group 2, 28 patients received an epicardial electrode during extraction procedure (Epicardial lead group) while 78 patients in group 3 (contralateral reimplantation group) received implantation of a new system contralaterally during extraction procedure. We analyzed peri- and postoperative data as well as 1-year outcomes of the three groups.

RESULTS

Patients in the system removal and epicardial lead groups were significantly older, had more comorbidities, and suffered more frequently from systemic infections than those in contralateral reimplantation group. Lead extraction procedures had comparable success rates: 95.5%, 96.4%, and 93.2% of complete lead removal in the System removal, Epicardial Lead, Contralateral re-implantation group respectively. Device reimplantation was performed in all patients in Epicardial lead and Contralateral reimplantation group, whereas only 49.4% in System removal group received device re-implantation. At 1-year follow-up, freedom from infection and absence of pocket irritation were comparable for all groups (94.7% Contralateral reimplantation group and Epicardial lead group, 100% System removal group). No procedure-related mortality was observed, whereas 1-year mortality was 3.4% in System removal group, 4.1% in Contralateral re-implantation group and 21.4% in Epicardial lead group ( < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In patients with CIED infection, systems should be removed completely and reimplanted after infection remediation. In pacemaker-dependent patients, simultaneous contralateral CIED re-implantation or epicardial lead placement may be performed, depending on route, severity and location of infection.

摘要

引言

在心脏植入电子设备(CIED)感染中,所有设备材料都需要移除。但是,尤其是对于起搏器依赖患者,通常无法实现无设备间隔以进行感染治疗。对于这些患者,有不同的治疗选择,然而理想的解决方案仍有待确定。

方法

这项回顾性分析纳入了190例因感染而接受CIED拔除的患者。分析了三种不同的治疗方案:第1组包括89例仅进行系统移除的患者(系统移除组)。第2组,28例患者在拔除过程中接受了心外膜电极(心外膜导线组),而第3组的78例患者(对侧重新植入组)在拔除过程中接受了对侧新系统植入。我们分析了三组患者的围手术期和术后数据以及1年的结局。

结果

系统移除组和心外膜导线组的患者比侧重新植入组的患者年龄更大,合并症更多,全身感染更频繁。导线拔除手术成功率相当:系统移除组、心外膜导线组、对侧重新植入组完全拔除导线的成功率分别为95.5%、96.4%和93.2%。心外膜导线组和对侧重新植入组的所有患者均进行了设备重新植入,而系统移除组只有49.4%的患者接受了设备重新植入。在1年随访时,所有组的无感染和无囊袋刺激情况相当(对侧重新植入组和心外膜导线组为94.7%,系统移除组为100%)。未观察到与手术相关的死亡,而系统移除组1年死亡率为3.4%,对侧重新植入组为4.1%,心外膜导线组为21.4%(<0.001)。

结论

对于CIED感染患者,应在感染治疗后完全移除系统并重新植入。对于起搏器依赖患者,可根据感染途径、严重程度和部位进行对侧CIED同期重新植入或心外膜导线置入。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a949/10808596/7d07c229cd1f/fcvm-10-1342886-g001.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验