Abstract Background & Introduction Patients undergoing an explantation of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) receive either a primary or secondary wound closure or open wound treatment depending on departmental practice. To date, there is limited data on whether secondary wound closure or open wound treatment has any benefit in terms of future complications although it requires a more intensive wound care. Material & Methods Patients who underwent CIED explantation for system infection at our institution between 2016 and 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. From this cohort, patients diagnosed with pocket infection were isolated and divided into two groups: (i) Patients who underwent primary wound closure with or without temporary use of a drain (PG), and (ii) patients who underwent secondary wound closure or open wound management (SG). Patients were followed up by telephone contact for short and long term complications. Results 387 patients underwent CIED explantation due to local or system infection at a heart centre. Of this cohort, 205 patients (135 female; 74.4 ±11.4 y.o.) had a pocket infection. In addition to local infection, 25.9% of all patients presented with a pocket perforation. The onset of infection was early (within 28 days) in 16.1%, intermediate (29 days - 1 year) in 50.2% and late (after 1 year) in 33.2%. Wound swabs and blood cultures were positive for pathogens in 61.0% and 14.1% respectively. 136 (65.9%) underwent primary wound closure, 69 (34.1%) underwent secondary wound closure or open wound management. Post-operative (p.o.) hematoma was present in 12.2% of the cases (6.6% of PG and 24.6% of SG). The risk of developing a p.o. hematoma was significantly more likely in the SG (OR=4.61; IC95%: 1.93 − 11.01). Re-implantation occurred in 70.2%, including 25.7% of leadless pacemakers an 1.5% subcutaneous defibrillators. In 13.7% re-implantation was not indicated, 4.4% refused and 1.0% had contraindications. Mean length of hospitalization was 12.4 ±8.9 days in the PG and 15.7 ±9.6 days in the SG (ρ = 0.0083). A total of 24 (34.8%) patients were discharged with an open wound with or without vacuum treatment (0.74% of PG; 34.8% of SG). Mean telephonic follow-up was 27 ±18 months in 147 cases (n1 = 99; n2 = 48). 91.8% of the cases had no pathological findings at follow-up. 2.7% developed a wound healing disorder (WHD) which was treated conservatively, 4.1% required revision, 0.7% explantation and 0.7% endocarditis. No statistical difference of complication risk between both groups was found (OR=1.8; IC95%: 0.51 - 6.17). Summary & Conclusions Management of CIED pocket infection with primary wound closure compared to secondary wound closure showed a statistically significant shorter hospital stay and reduced likelihood of post-operative hematoma, with no increase in long-term complication rates.
Read full abstract