International journal of cardiology · 2011
Management of cardiac device-related infections: a review of protocol-driven care.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Rodriguez Yasser, Garisto Juan, Carrillo Roger G
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The prevalence of cardiac device-related infections (CDIs) has mirrored the unprecedented increase in device usage. CDIs are currently one of the leading indications for extraction. Despite this, there is limited data regarding the clinical trends, management and outcomes associated with this complication.
METHODS: A review of a prospective registry of all patients undergoing device extraction between January 1, 2004, and June 15, 2009, at a single high-volume tertiary referral center was performed.
RESULTS: A total of 506 consecutive patients were identified. From these, 350 patients were identified as having a CDI (205 ICD, 145 PPM). The mean age was 69.9 ± 13.7. Although most patients presented clinically with signs of a pocket infection (PI) (42%), the most common final diagnosis was cardiac device infective endocarditis (CDIE) (57%). The two most common pathogens were methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (27%) and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis (23%); they accounted for 69% of all deaths. Cultures taken from pocket tissue as opposed to exudates displayed higher concordance with lead-tip cultures (56% and 31% respectively). The mean time from explantation to device reimplantation for PIs, bacteremia and CDIE was 6.7 ± 4.7, 10.25 ± 4.7 and 11.39 ± 16.6 days respectively.
CONCLUSION: CDIs are a serious complication associated with device usage. Diagnosis and management protocols for CDIs should feature transesophageal echocardiography; complete hardware extraction; broad-spectrum antibiotics that cover methicillin-resistant Staphylococci and cultures derived from lead-tips and preferably pocket tissue. Immediate device reimplantation is possible in noninfectious cases; several factors should be considered regarding reimplantation in cases involving CDIs.
METHODS: A review of a prospective registry of all patients undergoing device extraction between January 1, 2004, and June 15, 2009, at a single high-volume tertiary referral center was performed.
RESULTS: A total of 506 consecutive patients were identified. From these, 350 patients were identified as having a CDI (205 ICD, 145 PPM). The mean age was 69.9 ± 13.7. Although most patients presented clinically with signs of a pocket infection (PI) (42%), the most common final diagnosis was cardiac device infective endocarditis (CDIE) (57%). The two most common pathogens were methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (27%) and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis (23%); they accounted for 69% of all deaths. Cultures taken from pocket tissue as opposed to exudates displayed higher concordance with lead-tip cultures (56% and 31% respectively). The mean time from explantation to device reimplantation for PIs, bacteremia and CDIE was 6.7 ± 4.7, 10.25 ± 4.7 and 11.39 ± 16.6 days respectively.
CONCLUSION: CDIs are a serious complication associated with device usage. Diagnosis and management protocols for CDIs should feature transesophageal echocardiography; complete hardware extraction; broad-spectrum antibiotics that cover methicillin-resistant Staphylococci and cultures derived from lead-tips and preferably pocket tissue. Immediate device reimplantation is possible in noninfectious cases; several factors should be considered regarding reimplantation in cases involving CDIs.