Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2024
Impact of infective versus sterile transvenous lead removal on 30-day outcomes in cardiac implantable electronic devices.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Talaei Fahimeh, Ang Qi-Xuan, Tan Min-Choon, Hassan Mustafa, Scott Luis, Cha Yong-Mei, Lee Justin Z, Tamirisa Kamala
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Transvenous lead removal (TLR) is associated with increased mortality and morbidity. This study sought to evaluate the impact of TLR on in-hospital mortality and outcomes in patients with and without CIED infection.
METHODS: From January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2020, we utilized the nationally representative, all-payer, Nationwide Readmissions Database to assess patients who underwent TLR. We categorized TLR as indicated for infection, if the patient had a diagnosis of bacteremia, sepsis, or endocarditis during the initial admission. Conversely, if none of these conditions were present, TLR was considered sterile. The impact of infective vs sterile indications of TLR on mortality and major adverse events was studied.
RESULTS: Out of the total 25,144 patients who underwent TLR, 14,030 (55.8%) received TLR based on sterile indications, while 11,114 (44.2%) received TLR due to device infection, with 40.5% having systemic infection and 59.5% having isolated pocket infection. TLR due to infective indications was associated with a significant in-hospital mortality (5.59% vs 1.13%; OR = 5.16; 95% CI 4.33-6.16; p < 0.001). Moreover, when compared with sterile indications, TLR performed due to device infection was associated with a considerable risk of thromboembolic events including pulmonary embolism and stroke (OR = 3.80; 95% CI 3.23-4.47, p < 0.001). However, there was no significant difference in the conversion to open heart surgery (1.72% vs. 1.47%, p < 0.111), and infection was not an independent predictor of cardiac (OR = 1.12; 95% CI 0.97-1.29) or vascular complications (OR = 1.12; 95% CI 0.73-1.72) between the two groups.
CONCLUSION: Higher in-hospital mortality and rates of thromboembolic events associated with TLR resulting from infective indications may warrant further pursuing this diagnosis in patients.
METHODS: From January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2020, we utilized the nationally representative, all-payer, Nationwide Readmissions Database to assess patients who underwent TLR. We categorized TLR as indicated for infection, if the patient had a diagnosis of bacteremia, sepsis, or endocarditis during the initial admission. Conversely, if none of these conditions were present, TLR was considered sterile. The impact of infective vs sterile indications of TLR on mortality and major adverse events was studied.
RESULTS: Out of the total 25,144 patients who underwent TLR, 14,030 (55.8%) received TLR based on sterile indications, while 11,114 (44.2%) received TLR due to device infection, with 40.5% having systemic infection and 59.5% having isolated pocket infection. TLR due to infective indications was associated with a significant in-hospital mortality (5.59% vs 1.13%; OR = 5.16; 95% CI 4.33-6.16; p < 0.001). Moreover, when compared with sterile indications, TLR performed due to device infection was associated with a considerable risk of thromboembolic events including pulmonary embolism and stroke (OR = 3.80; 95% CI 3.23-4.47, p < 0.001). However, there was no significant difference in the conversion to open heart surgery (1.72% vs. 1.47%, p < 0.111), and infection was not an independent predictor of cardiac (OR = 1.12; 95% CI 0.97-1.29) or vascular complications (OR = 1.12; 95% CI 0.73-1.72) between the two groups.
CONCLUSION: Higher in-hospital mortality and rates of thromboembolic events associated with TLR resulting from infective indications may warrant further pursuing this diagnosis in patients.