Back to Authors

Tay, Soon-Tzeh

0000-0001-8392-3342

Mayo Clinic

Chang Gung Memorial Hospital

Citations 1

Abstract 14956: Outcomes of Leadless Pacemaker Implantation Following Transvenous Lead Removal of Infected Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device: A Systematic Review
Tan, Jian Liang , Tay, Soon Tzeh, Sorajja, Dan , Scott, Luis R. , Cha, Yong‐Mei , Russo, Andrea M. , Hussein, Ayman A. , Tan, Min Choon , Tay, Soon-Tzeh , Lee, Justin

Circulation | December 19, 2023 | Volume: 148 | Issue: Suppl_1 | Pages: No page available

10.1161/circ.148.suppl_1.14956 Get It

Background: The outcomes of leadless pacemaker (LP) implantation after transvenous lead removal (TLR) of infected cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) are not well-established. Objective: This study sought to describe the outcomes of LP implantation following TLR of infected CIED. Method: We conducted a literature search using PubMed and Embase for a combination of term including leadless pacemaker implantation, transvenous lead extraction, transvenous lead removal , transvenous lead explant , infected cardiac implantable electronic device . The inclusion criterion was LP implantation after TLR of infected CIED. The exclusion criterion was TLR for non-infectious reason. Study end-points were procedural complications and LP infection. Result: Of 132 publications reviewed, 13 studies with a total of 253 patients (74 ± 14 years of age, 69% males) were included. Amongst, 56.8% had systemic CIED infection and 43.2% had isolated pocket infection. Staphylococcus Aureus was the most common causative organism in 33% of the reported patients. Of 253 patients included, 105 patients (41.5%) underwent concomitant LP implantation during TLR procedure, and 36 patients (14.2%) had transvenous pacing as a bridge from TLR to LP implantation. During the LP implantation, 1 patient (0.4%) had an intra-procedural complication requiring sternotomy. Post-LP implantation, 2 patients (0.8%) developed groin hematoma, 2 patients (0.8%) developed femoral arteriovenous fistula, and 1 patient (0.4%) developed pericardial effusion requiring pericardiocentesis. During a mean follow-up of 11.3 ±10.6 months, 3 patients (1.2%) developed pacemaker syndrome, 1 patient (0.4%) developed acute on chronic heart failure exacerbation, and only 1 patient (0.4%) developed LP-related infection requiring LP retrieval. Conclusion: This study suggests that LP implant is feasible and safe post-removal of infected CIED with cumulative adverse events at 4% and a reinfection rate of 0.4%.