Logo
Arch Pediatr Infect Dis

Image Credit:Arch Pediatr Infect Dis

Recurrent Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Device Infection: A Case Report

Author(s):
Mohammadrafie KhorgamiMohammadrafie KhorgamiMohammadrafie Khorgami ORCID1, Kosar Khorasani NasabKosar Khorasani Nasab2, Maryam TaheriMaryam TaheriMaryam Taheri ORCID3, Davood Ramezani NezhadDavood Ramezani Nezhad4, Pegah BahiraiePegah Bahiraie5, Pouya EbrahimiPouya EbrahimiPouya Ebrahimi ORCID6, Mohsen AnafjeMohsen AnafjeMohsen Anafje ORCID7,*
1Department of Electrophysiology, Rajaei Cardiovascular Medical and Research Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
2Faculty of Medicine, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran
3Faculty of Medicine, Cardiovascular Research Center, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran
4Cardiac Electrophysiology Research Center, Rajaei Cardiovascular Medical and Research Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
5School of Medicine, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
6Tehran Heart Center, Cardiovascular Disease Research Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
7Cardiogenetic Research Center, Rajaei Cardiovascular Medical and Research Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran


Archives of Pediatric Infectious Diseases:Vol. In Press, issue In Press; e153336
Published online:Apr 07, 2025
Article type:Case Report
Received:Aug 17, 2024
Accepted:Mar 16, 2025
How to Cite:Mohammadrafie KhorgamiKosar Khorasani NasabMaryam TaheriDavood Ramezani NezhadPegah BahiraiePouya EbrahimiMohsen Anafjeet al.Recurrent Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Device Infection: A Case Report.Arch Pediatr Infect Dis.2025;In Press(In Press):e153336.https://doi.org/10.5812/apid-153336.

Abstract

Introduction:

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are widely utilized to manage various cardiac conditions, including arrhythmias and heart failure. Despite their therapeutic benefits, CIEDs carry the risk of serious complications, such as infections, which present significant challenges, particularly in pediatric patients.

Case Presentation:

We present the case of a 6-year-old male patient with a medical history of tetralogy of Fallot (TOF) repair and epicardial permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation, who presented with recurrent pocket infections. Following the initial pacemaker insertion, the patient exhibited swelling, erythema, and purulent drainage at the implantation site, necessitating device removal and replacement. Despite subsequent interventions and antibiotic therapy, the patient experienced recurrent infections, requiring multiple lead extractions and open-heart surgery for complete device removal and pulmonary valve replacement.

Conclusions:

The CIED infections in pediatric patients are severe and often necessitate complex management strategies, including device removal and prolonged antibiotic therapy. Careful evaluation of predisposing factors and strategic planning of interventions are crucial to reducing the risk of complications and improving patient outcomes.

1. Introduction

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs), including pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs), are essential for managing cardiac rhythm disorders but carry significant risks, such as infections, particularly in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) or end-stage renal disease (ESRD) undergoing hemodialysis (1). Their use has dramatically increased over the past several years, largely due to expanded indications from large clinical trials and the aging population (2). The CIEDs have evolved from single-chamber fixed-rate devices to advanced dual-chamber rate-responsive cardioversion and defibrillation systems, increasingly replacing older models (3). Implantable medical devices (IMDs) are vital in modern healthcare, enhancing survival and quality of life across various applications. With their increasing use, ensuring safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness has become a priority, driving efforts to improve regulations and patient outcomes (4).

While lifesaving, CIEDs are associated with complications such as infections, device failures, lead dislodgement, arrhythmias, and psychosocial issues like anxiety and depression (5). Additionally, it is crucial to recognize that these devices’ complexity and potential for failure necessitate vigilant monitoring and management to mitigate associated risks (6). Acute infections may occur intraoperatively or shortly after, requiring device removal and antibiotic therapy. Chronic infections can manifest months later, involving low-virulence organisms (5). Infections can range from localized pocket infections to systemic infections such as endocarditis, often caused by gram-positive bacteria like coagulase-negative staphylococci and Staphylococcus aureus, which are highly adherent to non-biological materials such as device leads and generators (7). The CIED infections can result in high mortality rates, reported to reach up to 18%, highlighting their severe impact on patient outcomes (8).

Recent research highlights the critical role of intensifying perioperative prophylaxis to prevent CIED infections. The PADIT trial found that while an incremental bundle of antibiotics did not significantly lower overall infection risk, it altered the infection microbiology, suggesting the need for alternative preventive strategies (9). The 2023 American Heart Association update further underscores the necessity of tailored perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis for high-risk patients (10). Moreover, a 2024 study emphasizes that bloodstream infections can cause severe complications, reinforcing the urgency for enhanced prophylactic measures to prevent device-related infections (11). In this case report, we present a 6-year-old boy with a history of tetralogy of Fallot (TOF) repair and recurrent CIED infections, demonstrating the critical importance of timely intervention and comprehensive management strategies.

2. Case Presentation

2.1. History and Physical Examination

A 6-year-old male was referred to Rajaei Heart Hospital, a tertiary pediatric cardiac center, with recurrent episodes of refractory fever. He presented with persistent erythema and swelling at the site of his epicardial permanent pacemaker (PPM). His medical history was significant for TOF, which had been surgically repaired at 18 months of age. Following the repair, an epicardial PPM was implanted due to complete heart block.

Approximately two months after the initial PPM placement, the patient developed localized erythema, swelling, and purulent discharge at the pacemaker pocket in the abdominal region, raising suspicion of a CIED pocket infection. Antimicrobial therapy was initiated, and the infected generator was removed. A new dual-chamber PPM was implanted in the left subclavian region. The patient remained asymptomatic until six months prior to his current presentation, when trauma to the left subclavian region resulted in a fractured ventricular lead. This necessitated the insertion of a new ventricular lead along with two additional leads.

Three weeks after the lead replacement, the patient returned with fever and localized symptoms. Physical examination revealed a febrile child with a tender, 3 × 4 cm swelling at the PPM pocket. There were no systemic signs of infection or hemodynamic instability. Despite initial interventions, the patient presented again three weeks later with persistent fever and headache. On examination, he appeared ill but was non-toxic, with stable hemodynamic parameters: Blood pressure of 105/75 mmHg, heart rate of 130 beats per minute, respiratory rate of 26 breaths per minute, and axillary temperature of 39°C. He was alert and responsive to verbal and painful stimuli. Localized examination showed tenderness and swelling at the PPM pocket site, measuring 3 × 4 cm. Systemic examination, including cardiovascular and respiratory assessments, was otherwise unremarkable. These findings necessitated further diagnostic evaluation and planning for management of the suspected recurrent CIED infection.

3. Method

A provisional diagnosis of CIED infection prompted a comprehensive diagnostic workup. Laboratory evaluation revealed leukocytosis with neutrophilia on complete blood count (CBC), and blood cultures grew coagulase-positive S. aureus (Table 1). A chest X-ray showed no evidence of pulmonary complications (Figure 1). Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) ruled out the presence of vegetation on the device leads or cardiac structures.

Table 1.Patient’s Laboratory Tests at the Time of Admission
Laboratory IndexPatientNormal Range
Hemoglobin (g/dL)1113.1 - 17.2
MCV (FL)7781 - 101
MCH (PG/CELL)2527 - 35
RBC (× 106/UL)4.34.1 - 5.7
WBC (× 103/UL)21.5004.4 - 11
Neutrophil (%)15700 (73)2500 - 7000 per microliter
Lymphocyte (%)5800 (27)1000 - 4500 per microliter
Platelet (UL)232.000150.000 - 450.000
BUN (Mg/DL)613 - 43
Creatinine (Mg/DL)0.50.5 - 1
Sodium (MEq/L)136(135 - 145)
Potassium (Mmol/L)3.73.6 - 5.2
Calcium (Mg/DL)8.68.5 - 10.5
Magnesium (Mg/DL)2.21.5 - 2.2
Albumin (gr/DL)3.53.4 - 5.5
PT (s)1411 - 14
PTT (s)4225 - 35
INR1.050.8 - 1.2
ESR (Mmol)/h7030
C-reactive protein900 - 1⁺
Blood glucose (Mg/dL)11274 - 126
Urine analysisNormalNormal
Blood cultureStaphylococcus aureus (coagulase. positive)Negative
HIV-AbNon-reactiveNon-reactive
HBS-AgNon-reactiveNon-reactive
HCV-AbNon-reactiveNon-reactive

Patient’s Laboratory Tests at the Time of Admission

A, this chest X-ray was taken one day after the lead fracture (red arrow) that happened due to the trauma; B, with open heart surgery leads were extracted and epicardial permanent pacemaker (PPM) was inserted.
Figure 1.

A, this chest X-ray was taken one day after the lead fracture (red arrow) that happened due to the trauma; B, with open heart surgery leads were extracted and epicardial permanent pacemaker (PPM) was inserted.

Empirical antibiotic therapy was initiated with cefazolin (1 g intravenously every 8 hours) while awaiting definitive culture results. Supportive measures included intravenous (IV) fluid therapy and antipyretic treatment with acetaminophen (15 mg/kg every 6 hours as needed for fever). Clinical improvement was noted during the initial treatment course, with a significant reduction in erythema and swelling at the CIED pocket site. Upon confirmation of S. aureus from culture results, targeted antibiotic therapy was initiated.

The patient was scheduled for lead extraction. A temporary pacemaker was implanted via femoral vein access to maintain cardiac function during the procedure. The infected ventricular lead was successfully removed, but due to significant adhesions, the remaining two leads could not be extracted transvenously.

To ensure complete eradication of the infection, IV antibiotic therapy was continued for two weeks. Repeat blood cultures after this period were negative for bacterial growth. Subsequently, the patient underwent open-heart surgery to remove the remaining leads. During the procedure, a biological pulmonary valve replacement was performed due to clinical indications. Small lead fragments were intentionally left in the brachiocephalic vein to prevent significant vascular injury.

Postoperatively, the patient was closely monitored. Resolution of erythema and swelling was achieved, and no signs of infection were observed. The patient was discharged with a five-day course of oral cephalexin (500 mg four times daily) as prophylactic therapy, with instructions to report any signs of infection immediately. Follow-up evaluations were conducted monthly. At six months, the patient remained asymptomatic, with no recurrence of CIED infection, and all blood cultures remained negative throughout the follow-up period.

3.1. Conclusion and Follow-up

Following four days of IV antibiotic therapy, pacemaker analysis confirmed normal device function, and the patient’s fever and infection symptoms resolved. He was discharged on a five-day course of oral cephalexin (500 mg four times daily) as prophylactic therapy. The family was instructed to monitor for signs of recurrent infection, including fever, erythema, or swelling, and to report any concerns promptly. Scheduled follow-up evaluations included monthly clinical assessments and blood cultures at three-month intervals. At six months post-discharge, the patient remained asymptomatic, with no clinical or microbiological evidence of CIED infection. Blood cultures consistently returned negative results throughout the follow-up period. This case underscores the importance of timely intervention, strategic planning, and diligent follow-up in the effective management of pediatric CIED infections, contributing to favorable clinical outcomes.

4. Discussion

In this study, we reported a 6-year-old patient with recurrent infection of the CIED and this patient’s natural history. The implantation of CIEDs, including pacemakers and ICDs, has significantly increased over the past several years, primarily due to increased life expectancy and expanded indications from large clinical trials (12). This trend is especially notable in pediatric patients, where the implantation of ICDs has expanded in response to guidelines that have adapted adult data for younger populations. For pediatric patients with specific cardiovascular diagnoses, ICD implantation is generally recommended when a clear risk of sudden cardiac arrest is present, although there remain significant gaps in data guiding these recommendations (13).

Pediatric patients with CIEDs require regular follow-ups to monitor device function, manage complications, and adjust settings to accommodate their growth and development. This care involves a multidisciplinary approach, including cardiologists, electrophysiologists, and imaging specialists, to ensure optimal outcomes and minimize potential complications (14). Despite advancements in device technology and implantation techniques, complications related to CIEDs in pediatric patients remain a significant concern. These complications can include infection, lead dislodgement, and device malfunction. Infections, such as those seen in our 6-year-old patient, pose a serious risk and often require complex management strategies including antibiotic therapy and, in some cases, surgical intervention to remove and replace the device. These complications can significantly contribute to morbidity and mortality, highlighting the critical need for meticulous post-implantation care and prompt intervention when issues arise (15).

The incidence of CIED infection is estimated to be about 1.9 per 1000 devices per year, but according to the updated data from Baddour et al., the incidence rate is more specifically detailed in different contexts and settings, which might provide additional insights and updated figures (11). According to two recent prospective multicenter trials, the overall infection rate of CIEDs over 12 months is approximately 1%. De novo CIED implants carry a lower risk of infection compared to generator replacements, lead revisions, or upgrades. For instance, the infection rate at 12 months for new device implants ranged from 0.3% to 1.1%. In contrast, generator replacement procedures had an infection rate between 0.5% and 2.5%, while lead revision or upgrade procedures demonstrated an infection rate of 2.1% (16). The risk of in-hospital mortality in these patients is reported as high as 11.3% (17). In another study, this rate is estimated even higher and close to approximately 30% in an almost one-year follow-up (18).

There are known risk factors for the infection of CIEDs including renal failure, hematoma formation, implantation of multiple leads, and device revision (17). Infections commonly arise from the skin microbiota, often involving bacteria such as S. aureus, Staphylococcus epidermidis, and various Enterococci species. The main approach involves starting antibiotics, extracting the infected device, and reimplanting if necessary. However, there is a risk of reinfection, and subsequent extractions can be complicated (5). Interestingly, recent evidence suggests that extraction of the CIED may be omitted in some cases without increased risk of recurrent infection if there is no pocket infection or endocarditis (19).

Recent advances emphasize that therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) correlations during antibiotic therapy for CIED infections have been shown to improve clinical outcomes, particularly in reducing antibiotic resistance and healthcare costs. These approaches are increasingly being advocated for all patients with CIED infections to ensure optimal therapeutic levels and minimize adverse effects (20). In the Narui et al. study, 90.5% of patients had complete lead extraction using transvenous techniques. Repeat infection occurred in 9.5% of patients within a median of 103 days. The study identified LV assist devices, younger age, and S. aureus as risk factors, and CKD, CHF, septic emboli, S. aureus, and major complications as mortality predictors (18). Consistent with our study, repeated infections are more commonly seen in younger patients, with S. aureus infection and LV devices (21).

Many interventions have been proposed to reduce the risk of implant infection. The prophylactic antibiotic has shown a significant effect on declining this risk; however, other measures are yet to be proven as effective interventions (10). In a meta-analysis, no significant difference in mortality risk was found between men and women or between patients with PPM and ICD devices. While diabetes mellitus is a risk factor for infection, it does not significantly affect the mortality rate (21). Infection with the microorganism S. aureus is associated with a higher (20 - 30%) risk of mortality in these patients (22). The CIED infections can lead to complications like heart failure and emboli, which indicate a high probability of infective endocarditis and may necessitate open surgery (23). Identifying microorganism sensitivity (MSSA vs. MRSA) is crucial for antibiotic selection, but device extraction is the primary treatment for better outcomes. However, frail patients with severe comorbidities may not be able to undergo these procedures (24).

According to the 2021 PACES guidelines, lead extraction is recommended for CIED-related endocarditis, unexplained bacteremia (especially with S. aureus), or recurrent bacteremia unresponsive to antibiotics. Pre-extraction blood cultures and TTE are advised to guide antibiotic selection and assess embolic risks. For isolated superficial CIED pocket infections with negative blood cultures and no endocarditis, lead extraction may be considered (13). The overall risk of major complications in CIED removal is low (1.9%), but in-hospital mortality is relatively high (0.8%). Major complications include SVC perforation, laceration, and cardiac avulsion (25). In the LExICon study, major complications were 1.4% and mortality was 0.4%. Primary risk factors for complications and mortality during removal included low BMI, renal disease, heart failure, and extraction due to infection (26).

Preventive measures significantly reduce the risk of CIED infection and recurrent infections. These measures, detailed in Table 2, are divided into pre-intervention, peri-intervention, and post-intervention categories. Preprocedural antibiotics, such as IV cefazolin one hour before incision or IV vancomycin two hours before incision, are particularly effective in reducing implant infection risk (6).

Table 2.Preventive Measures to Reduce the Risk of Implant Infection a
MeasuresProcess
Pre-proceduralFor patients at higher risk, anticoagulation therapy can be maintained with either warfarin or non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants. According to the bruise control study, the target INR on the day of surgery should be ≤ 3.0 (or ≤ 3.5 for those with a mechanical valve); if this target is not met, the surgery is rescheduled.
If feasible, antiplatelet agents should be discontinued 5 to 10 days prior to CIED surgery.
Chest hair should be removed using electric clippers, not razors, shortly before the surgery.
Administer antimicrobial prophylaxis during the placement of a CIED.
Peri-proceduralSurgical preparation should utilize 2% alcoholic chlorhexidine instead of povidone-iodine.
According to the WRAP-IT study, patients with a high risk of CIED infection should be considered for the use of an antibiotic envelope.
Post-proceduralHematoma drainage or evacuation should be avoided unless there is significant pain, tension, or wound dehiscence.
Postpone, or if possible, avoid any additional device re intervention or revision.

Preventive Measures to Reduce the Risk of Implant Infection a

4.1. Clinical Learning Point

The CIED infections, particularly in pediatric patients, pose significant risks and often necessitate intricate management strategies. Children with a prior history of pacemaker pocket infections are especially vulnerable, and meticulous screening for predisposing factors is essential. Despite the availability of strategies to mitigate the risk of recurrent infections, complete prevention at new implantation sites is not always guaranteed. Key preventive measures include minimizing the number of leads, effectively treating both local and systemic infections, conducting comprehensive immune evaluations, and utilizing a multidisciplinary team experienced in CIED procedures. This case report of a 6-year-old male with a history of TOF repair and recurrent pacemaker infections highlights the importance of prompt intervention, strategic planning, and diligent follow-up to mitigate the risks of infection, reduce mortality, and improve overall patient outcomes.

Footnotes

References

  • 1.
    Al-Khatib SM. Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices. N Engl J Med. 2024;390(5):442-54. [PubMed ID: 38294976]. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra2308353.
  • 2.
    Greenspon AJ, Patel JD, Lau E, Ochoa JA, Frisch DR, Ho RT, et al. 16-year trends in the infection burden for pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in the United States 1993 to 2008. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58(10):1001-6. [PubMed ID: 21867833]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2011.04.033.
  • 3.
    Arnold DM, Nazi I, Warkentin TE, Smith JW, Toltl LJ, George JN, et al. Approach to the diagnosis and management of drug-induced immune thrombocytopenia. Transfus Med Rev. 2013;27(3):137-45. [PubMed ID: 23845922]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC3728035]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmrv.2013.05.005.
  • 4.
    Canadian Institute for Health Information. Implantable Medical Devices in Canada: Insights Into High-Volume Procedures and Associated Costs. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Institute for Health Information; 2020. Available from: https://www.cihi.ca/sites/default/files/document/implantable-medical-devices-report-en.pdf.
  • 5.
    Richardson CJ, Prempeh J, Gordon KS, Poyser T, Tiesenga F. Surgical Techniques, Complications, and Long-Term Health Effects of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices. Cureus. 2021;13(1). e13001. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.13001.
  • 6.
    Phillips P, Krahn AD, Andrade JG, Chakrabarti S, Thompson CR, Harris DJ, et al. Treatment and Prevention of Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Device (CIED) Infections. CJC Open. Elsevier Inc. 2020;4(11):946-58. [PubMed ID: 36444361]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC9700216]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjco.2022.07.010.
  • 7.
    Krahn AD, Longtin Y, Philippon F, Birnie DH, Manlucu J, Angaran P, et al. Prevention of Arrhythmia Device Infection Trial: The PADIT Trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;72(24):3098-109. [PubMed ID: 30545448]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2018.09.068.
  • 8.
    Blomstrom-Lundqvist C, Traykov V, Erba PA, Burri H, Nielsen JC, Bongiorni MG, et al. European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) international consensus document on how to prevent, diagnose, and treat cardiac implantable electronic device infections-endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS), International Society for Cardiovascular Infectious Diseases (ISCVID) and the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Europace. 2020;22(4):515-49. [PubMed ID: 31702000]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC7132545]. https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euz246.
  • 9.
    Longtin Y, Gervais P, Birnie DH, Wang J, Alings M, Philippon F, et al. Impact of Choice of Prophylaxis on the Microbiology of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infections: Insights From the Prevention of Arrhythmia Device Infection Trial (PADIT). Open Forum Infect Dis. 2021;8(11):ofab513. [PubMed ID: 34859113]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC8632784]. https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofab513.
  • 10.
    Bongiorni MG, Zucchelli G. Blood stream infection in defibrillator recipients: cardiac imaging for all patients or sometimes skillful neglect? Eur Heart J. 2024;45(14):1278-80. [PubMed ID: 38546417]. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehae025.
  • 11.
    Baddour LM, Esquer Garrigos Z, Rizwan Sohail M, Havers-Borgersen E, Krahn AD, Chu VH, et al. Update on Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Device Infections and Their Prevention, Diagnosis, and Management: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association: Endorsed by the International Society for Cardiovascular Infectious Diseases. Circulation. 2024;149(2):e201-16. [PubMed ID: 38047353]. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000001187.
  • 12.
    Mond HG, Proclemer A. The 11th world survey of cardiac pacing and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: calendar year 2009--a World Society of Arrhythmia's project. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2011;34(8):1013-27. [PubMed ID: 21707667]. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-8159.2011.03150.x.
  • 13.
    Shah MJ, Silka MJ, Silva JNA, Balaji S, Beach CM, Benjamin MN, et al. 2021 PACES expert consensus statement on the indications and management of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices in pediatric patients. Cardiol Young. 2021;31(11):1738-69. [PubMed ID: 34338183]. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1047951121003413.
  • 14.
    Stankovic I, Voigt JU, Burri H, Muraru D, Sade LE, Haugaa KH, et al. Imaging in patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices: part 2-imaging after device implantation. A clinical consensus statement of the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI) and the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) of the ESC. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2023;25(1):e33-54. [PubMed ID: 37861420]. https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjci/jead273.
  • 15.
    Silvetti MS, Colonna D, Gabbarini F, Porcedda G, Rimini A, D'Onofrio A, et al. New Guidelines of Pediatric Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices: What Is Changing in Clinical Practice? J Cardiovasc Dev Dis. 2024;11(4). [PubMed ID: 38667717]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC11050217]. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcdd11040099.
  • 16.
    Han HC, Hawkins NM, Pearman CM, Birnie DH, Krahn AD. Epidemiology of cardiac implantable electronic device infections: incidence and risk factors. Europace. 2021;23(23 Suppl 4):iv3-iv10. [PubMed ID: 34051086]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC8221051]. https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euab042.
  • 17.
    Sohail MR, Hussain S, Le KY, Dib C, Lohse CM, Friedman PA, et al. Risk factors associated with early- versus late-onset implantable cardioverter-defibrillator infections. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2011;31(2):171-83. [PubMed ID: 21365264]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10840-010-9537-x.
  • 18.
    Narui R, Nakajima I, Norton C, Holmes BB, Yoneda ZT, Phillips N, et al. Risk Factors for Repeat Infection and Mortality After Extraction of Infected Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2021;7(9):1182-92. [PubMed ID: 33812827]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacep.2021.01.010.
  • 19.
    Berge A, Carlsen C, Petropoulos A, Gadler F, Rasmussen M. Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia, cardiac implantable electronic device, extraction, and the risk of recurrent infection; a retrospective population-based cohort study. Infect Dis (Lond). 2024;56(7):543-53. [PubMed ID: 38529922]. https://doi.org/10.1080/23744235.2024.2333444.
  • 20.
    Russo A, Serraino R, Serapide F, Trecarichi EM, Torti C. New advances in management and treatment of cardiac implantable electronic devices infections. Infection. 2024;52(2):323-36. [PubMed ID: 37996646]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC10955036]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s15010-023-02130-8.
  • 21.
    Ngiam JN, Liong TS, Sim MY, Chew NWS, Sia CH, Chan SP, et al. Risk Factors for Mortality in Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device (CIED) Infections: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Clin Med. 2022;11(11). [PubMed ID: 35683451]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC9181812]. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11113063.
  • 22.
    Asgeirsson H, Thalme A, Kristjansson M, Weiland O. Incidence and outcome of Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis--a 10-year single-centre northern European experience. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2015;21(8):772-8. [PubMed ID: 25934159]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2015.04.014.
  • 23.
    Chee QZ, Tan YQ, Ngiam JN, Win MT, Shen X, Choo JN, et al. The SHARPEN clinical risk score predicts mortality in patients with infective endocarditis: An 11-year study. Int J Cardiol. 2015;191:273-6. [PubMed ID: 25981367]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2015.04.236.
  • 24.
    Kirkfeldt RE, Johansen JB, Nielsen JC. Management of Cardiac Electronic Device Infections: Challenges and Outcomes. Arrhythm Electrophysiol Rev. 2016;5(3):183-7. [PubMed ID: 28116083]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC5248667]. https://doi.org/10.15420/aer.2016:21:2.
  • 25.
    Wazni O, Wilkoff BL. Considerations for cardiac device lead extraction. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2016;13(4):221-9. [PubMed ID: 26822723]. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrcardio.2015.207.
  • 26.
    Wazni O, Epstein LM, Carrillo RG, Love C, Adler SW, Riggio DW, et al. Lead extraction in the contemporary setting: the LExICon study: an observational retrospective study of consecutive laser lead extractions. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55(6):579-86. [PubMed ID: 20152562]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2009.08.070.
comments

Leave a comment here


Crossmark
Crossmark
Checking
Share on
Cited by
Metrics

Purchasing Reprints

  • Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) handles bulk orders for article reprints for Brieflands. To place an order for reprints, please click here (   https://www.copyright.com/landing/reprintsinquiryform/ ). Clicking this link will bring you to a CCC request form where you can provide the details of your order. Once complete, please click the ‘Submit Request’ button and CCC’s Reprints Services team will generate a quote for your review.
Search Relations

Author(s):

Related Articles