Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Replacement Research Articles

Clinical and organizational management of cardiac implantable electronic device replacements: an Italian Survey promoted by AIAC (Italian Association of Arrhythmology and Cardiac Pacing).

The aim of this survey was to assess the management and organization of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) replacement in Italy. A questionnaire consisting of 24 questions on organizational aspects and on the peri-procedural management of anticoagulant therapies and antibiotic prophylaxis was sent via the Internet to 154 Italian arrhythmia centers. A total of 103 out of 154 centers completed the questionnaire (67% response rate). In 43% of the centers, the procedures were performed under day-case admission, in 40% under ordinary admission, and in 17% under either day-case or ordinary admission. The most frequent reason (66%) for choosing ordinary admission rather than day-case admission was to obtain full reimbursement. Although warfarin therapy was continued in 73% of the centers, nonvitamin K oral anticoagulants were discontinued, without bridging, 24 h or less prior to replacement procedures in 88%. Prophylactic antibiotic therapy was systematically administered in all centers; in 97%, the first antibiotic dose was administered 1-2 h prior to procedures. Local antibacterial envelopes were also used in 43% of the centers in patients with a higher risk of device infection. This survey provides a representative picture of how CIED replacements are organized and managed in current Italian clinical practice. The choice of the type of hospitalization (short versus ordinary) was more often motivated by economic reasons (reimbursement of the procedure) than by clinical and organizational factors. Peri-procedural management of anticoagulation and prophylactic antibiotic therapy was consistent with current scientific evidence.

P1497Zero device-related infections in 4285 patient-years of follow-up after cardiac implantable electronic device replacement combined with topic gentamicin-collagen sponge application

P1497Zero device-related infections in 4285 patient-years of follow-up after cardiac implantable electronic device replacement combined with topic gentamicin-collagen sponge application

Incidence and Costs Related to Lead Damage Occurring Within the First Year After a Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Replacement Procedure

BackgroundInadvertent damage to leads for transvenous pacemakers, implantable cardioverter‐defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators is an important complication associated with generator‐replacement procedures. We sought to estimate the incidence and costs associated with transvenous lead damage following cardiac implantable electronic device replacement.Methods and ResultsUsing the Truven Health Analytics MarketScan Commercial Research Database, we identified health care claims between 2009 and 2013 for lead damage following generator replacement. Patients were identified by claims with a procedure code for cardiac implantable electronic device replacement and then evaluated for 1 year. All follow‐up visits for lead damage were identified, and incidence, risk factors, and hospitalization costs were determined. A total of 22 557 patients with pacemakers, 20 632 with implantable cardioverter‐defibrillators, and 2063 with cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators met selection criteria. Incidence of lead damage was 0.46% for pacemaker replacement, 1.27% for implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator replacement, and 1.94% for cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator replacement procedures (P<0.001). After adjusting for patient characteristics, patients with implantable cardioverter‐defibrillators and cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators demonstrated risk of lead damage that was, respectively, double (hazard ratio 2.00, 95% CI 1.57–2.55) and >2.5 times (hazard ratio 2.58, 95% CI 1.73–3.83) that of patients with pacemakers. Lead revision or repair procedures were associated with increased inpatient hospitalization costs (mean $19 959 for pacemaker, $24 885 for implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator, and $46 229 for cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator; P=0.048, Kruskal–Wallis test).ConclusionsThese findings establish the first objective assessment of the incidence, risk factors, and economic burden of lead damage following cardiac implantable electronic device replacement in the United States. New care algorithms are warranted to avoid these events, which impose substantial burdens on patients, physicians, and payors.

Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Replacement Carries Significant Risk: Complication Rates from a New Zealand Tertiary Centre

Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Replacement Carries Significant Risk: Complication Rates from a New Zealand Tertiary Centre

Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Replacement Is Associated with Potential Complications: Complication Rates from a New Zealand Tertiary Centre

Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Replacement Is Associated with Potential Complications: Complication Rates from a New Zealand Tertiary Centre