Topaz Moris, Chorin Ehud, Schwartz Arie Lorin, Hochstadt Aviram, Shotan Avraham, Ashkenazi Itamar, Kazatsker Mark, Carmel Narin-Nard, Topaz Guy, Oron Yoram, Margolis Gilad, Nof Eyal, Beinart Roy, Glikson Michael, Mazo Anna, Milman Anat, Dekel Michal, Banai Shmuel, Rosso Raphael, Viskin Sami
Department of Cardiology, Sourasky Tel Aviv Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel; Emeritus Plastic Surgery Unit, Hillel Yaffe Medical Center, Hadera, Israel.
Department of Cardiology, Sourasky Tel Aviv Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel; Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2023 Jan 17;81(2):119-133. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2022.10.022.
Present guidelines endorse complete removal of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (pacemakers/defibrillators), including extraction of all intracardiac electrodes, not only for systemic infections, but also for localized pocket infections.
The authors evaluated the efficacy of delivering continuous, in situ-targeted, ultrahigh concentration of antibiotics (CITA) into the infected subcutaneous device pocket, obviating the need for device/lead extraction.
The CITA group consisted of 80 patients with pocket infection who were treated with CITA during 2007-2021. Of them, 9 patients declined lead extraction because of prohibitive operative risk, and 6 patients had questionable indications for extraction. The remaining 65 patients with pocket infection, who were eligible for extraction, but opted for CITA treatment, were compared with 81 patients with pocket infection and similar characteristics who underwent device/lead extraction as primary therapy.
A total of 80 patients with pocket infection were treated with CITA during 2007-2021. CITA was curative in 85% (n = 68 of 80) of patients, who remained free of infection (median follow-up 3 years [IQR: 1.0-6.8 years]). In the case-control study of CITA vs device/lead extraction, cure rates were higher after device/lead extraction than after CITA (96.2% [n = 78 of 81] vs 84.6% [n = 55 of 65]; P = 0.027). However, rates of serious complications were also higher after extraction (n = 12 [14.8%] vs n = 1 [1.5%]; P = 0.005). All-cause 1-month and 1-year mortality were similar for CITA and device/lead extraction (0.0% vs 3.7%; P = 0.25 and 12.3% vs 13.6%; P = 1.00, respectively). Extraction was avoided in 90.8% (n = 59 of 65) of extraction-eligible patients treated with CITA.
CITA is a safe and effective alternative for patients with pocket infection who are unsuitable or unwilling to undergo extraction. (Salvage of Infected Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices [CIED] by Localized High-Dose Antibiotics; NCT01770067).
目前的指南支持完全移除心血管植入式电子设备(起搏器/除颤器),包括拔除所有心内电极,不仅用于全身性感染,也用于局部囊袋感染。
作者评估了向感染的皮下设备囊袋内持续输送原位靶向超高浓度抗生素(CITA)的疗效,从而避免设备/导线拔除的必要性。
CITA组由80例2007年至2021年期间接受CITA治疗的囊袋感染患者组成。其中,9例患者因手术风险过高而拒绝拔除导线,6例患者的拔除指征存疑。其余65例有拔除适应证但选择CITA治疗的囊袋感染患者与81例具有相似特征且接受设备/导线拔除作为主要治疗方法的囊袋感染患者进行比较。
2007年至2021年期间,共有80例囊袋感染患者接受了CITA治疗。CITA对85%(80例中的68例)的患者有效,这些患者保持无感染状态(中位随访3年[四分位间距:1.0 - 6.8年])。在CITA与设备/导线拔除的病例对照研究中,设备/导线拔除后的治愈率高于CITA(96.2%[81例中的78例]对84.6%[65例中的55例];P = 0.027)。然而,拔除后的严重并发症发生率也更高(12例[14.8%]对1例[1.5%];P = 0.005)。CITA与设备/导线拔除的全因1个月和1年死亡率相似(分别为0.0%对3.7%;P = 0.25和12.3%对13.6%;P = 1.00)。在接受CITA治疗的65例有拔除适应证的患者中,90.8%(65例中的59例)避免了拔除。
对于不适合或不愿意接受拔除的囊袋感染患者,CITA是一种安全有效的替代方法。(局部高剂量抗生素挽救感染的心血管植入式电子设备[CIED];NCT01770067)