Optimal timing of of cardiac implantable electronic device reoperation

Abstract

Abstract Background Early re-intervention may increase the risk of infection of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED). Some operators therefore delay lead repositioning in case of dislocation by weeks, however there is no evidence to support this practice. The aim of our study was to evaluate the impact of the timing of re-operation on infection risk. Methods Data from consecutive patients (n=249) receiving lead/generator repositioning in one Hungarian and one German tertiary centre between January 1995 and August 2022 were retrospectively analysed. Relative risk of CIED infection in the first year was compared among patients undergoing early (≤1 week) vs. delayed (from 1 week to 1 year) re-operation. Results Out of 249 patients (mean age 70 ± 13 years, 54% male) requiring CIED re-intervention (30% single-chamber, 48% dual-chamber, and 22% CRT devices), 55 patients underwent right atrial (22%), 145 patients underwent right ventricular (59%), 20 patients underwent coronary sinus (8%), and 28 patients underwent multiple lead (11%) repositioning. Eighty-five patients (34%) went through an early (median 2, interquartile range (IQ): 1-4.5) and 164 (66%) patients had a delayed lead/pocket revision (median 53, IQ 36-209 days). A total of 9 (3,6%) wound/device infections were identified during the first year of follow-up, 1 (1,2%) vs. 8 (4,9%) in the in the early vs delayed groups. The risk of infection was numerically lower in the early vs. the delayed intervention groups yielding no statistically significant difference (OR=0.232; 95% CI 0.029-1.888; p=0.172). After adjustment for typical risk factors for CIED infection (i.e., number of implanted leads, diabetes, heart failure, fever prior to implant, therapy with corticosteroids, anticoagulation or antiplatelet therapy, temporary pacemaker) this difference remained non-significant (adjusted OR=0.266, 95% CI 0.032-2.246, p=0.224). System explantation/extraction was necessary in 7 cases (2,8 %), all being revised in the delayed group (OR early vs. delayed 0.128, 95% CI 0.01-2.273, p=0.161). Conclusion In this bicentric study, delayed re-intervention did not reduce the risk of CIED infection compared to patients undergoing an early (<1 week) re-operation.