Utility of an Externalized Temporary Transvenous Implantable Cardioverter-defibrillator System in the Setting of Ventricular Tachycardia Storm and Concurrent Device Infection Requiring Extraction.

With the expanding use of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) therapy, intravascular device infections are becoming more common. In the case of transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) infections requiring extraction for bacterial clearance, there remains no standard method to deliver temporary ICD therapy following device removal. We present a case of persistent bacteremia complicated by monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (VT) electrical storm where biventricular ICD system extraction was performed and a temporary transvenous dual-coil lead with an externalized ICD generator was used to treat VT episodes prior to the re-implantation of a new permanent system. This case demonstrates the utility of a temporary externalized transvenous ICD system in the successful detection and pace-termination of VT, thereby reducing episodes of painful and potentially harmful external defibrillator shocks during the treatment of CIED infection.

Cost-Effectiveness of Antibiotic-Eluting Envelope for Prevention of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infections in Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: Use of an antibiotic-eluting envelope (AEE) during cardiac implantable electronic device procedures reduces infection risk but increases procedural costs. We aim to estimate the cost-effectiveness of AEE use during cardiac implantable electronic device procedures among patients with heart failure. METHODS: A state-transition cohort model of heart failure patients undergoing cardiac implantable electronic device implantation or generator replacement was developed with input parameters estimated from randomized trials, registries, surveys, and claims data. Effectiveness was estimated from the World-Wide Randomized Antibiotic Envelope Infection Prevention Trial. AEE was assumed to cost $953 per unit. The model projected mortality, quality-adjusted life-years, costs, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of AEE use compared with usual care from a US healthcare sector perspective over a lifetime horizon. We assumed a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. RESULTS: Compared with usual care, AEE use in initial implantations produced an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $112 000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained (39% probability of being cost-effective). In generator replacement procedures, AEE use produced an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $54 000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained (84% probability of being cost-effective). Results were sensitive to the underlying rate of infection, cost of the AEE, and durability of AEE effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Universal AEE use for cardiac implantable electronic device procedures in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction is unlikely to be cost-effective, reinforcing the need for individualized risk assessment to guide uptake of the AEE in clinical practice. Selective use in patients at increased risk of infection, such as those undergoing generator replacement procedures, is more likely to meet health system value benchmarks.

Survivorship and complications of total hip arthroplasty in patients with dwarfism.

BACKGROUND: Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a common procedure used to treat bony hip deformities and skeletal dysplasia in dwarfism. These surgeries are often more difficult than conventional THA as they may involve malformed joints and poor bone quality, and may require smaller prostheses. This study aims to investigate whether implant survivorship and revision rates vary among patients with and without dwarfism undergoing THA. METHODS: A retrospective case-control study was performed for 102 THAs completed between 1997 and 2014 in patients under the height threshold of 147.32 cm. This cohort was matched 1:1.5 with patients of normal height with respect to age, gender, year of surgery, and Charlson comorbidities. All cases had a minimum follow-up of 1 year. A chart review was performed to identify patient and surgical characteristics, including outcomes. Radiographs were assessed for deformity, loosening, and periprosthetic fractures among other factors. RESULTS: The 2-, 5-, and 10-year survivorship of THA in patients with dwarfism was 92.9%, 92.9%, and 80.7%, respectively; and 94.4%, 86.4%, and 86.4% for controls, respectively (p = 0.95). The dwarfism cohort demonstrated an OR of 3.81 and 3.02 for revision for periprosthetic fractures (p = 0.11) and mechanical wear (p = 0.21), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: THA in patients with dwarfism achieves comparable results to a non-dwarfism population with regards to implant survivorship; however, there is a trend toward increased periprosthetic fractures and wear-related failures. Surgeons should be aware of this potentially higher risk in this population and take morphological differences into account during surgical planning and technique.