Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 5 de 5
Filtrar
2.
J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown) ; 20(5): 271-277, 2019 May.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30624298

RESUMEN

: Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation has greatly increased, with an associated exponential increase in CIED infections (CDIs). Cardiac device related infective endocarditis (CDRIE) has high morbidity and mortality: approximately 10-21%. Therefore, a prompt diagnosis and radical treatment of CDRIE are needed; transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is the mainstay for the complete healing, even if associated with wide logistic problems, high therapeutic costs and high mortality risk for patients. Some criticisms about the value of Duke criteria and their limitations for the diagnosis of CDRIE are known. The significance of classic laboratory data, transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and transesophageal echocardiography (TEE), considered in the Duke score, are reviewed and critically discussed in this article, with regard to the specific field of the diagnosis of CDI. The need for new techniques for achieving the diagnostic reliability has been well perceived by physicians, and additional techniques have been introduced in the new European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and British Heart Rhythm Society (BHRS) guidelines on infective endocarditis. These suggested techniques, such as 18-Fluorodeoxyglucose PET/computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT), white blood cell PET (WBC PET) and lung multislice CT (MSCT), are also discussed in the study. This short review is intended as an extensive summary of the diagnostic workflow in cases of CDI and will be useful for readers who want to know more about this issue.


Asunto(s)
Vías Clínicas , Desfibriladores Implantables/efectos adversos , Remoción de Dispositivos , Endocarditis Bacteriana/diagnóstico por imagen , Endocarditis Bacteriana/cirugía , Marcapaso Artificial/efectos adversos , Infecciones Relacionadas con Prótesis/diagnóstico por imagen , Infecciones Relacionadas con Prótesis/cirugía , Flujo de Trabajo , Antibacterianos/uso terapéutico , Remoción de Dispositivos/efectos adversos , Remoción de Dispositivos/mortalidad , Endocarditis Bacteriana/microbiología , Endocarditis Bacteriana/mortalidad , Humanos , Valor Predictivo de las Pruebas , Infecciones Relacionadas con Prótesis/microbiología , Infecciones Relacionadas con Prótesis/mortalidad , Factores de Riesgo , Resultado del Tratamiento
3.
J Infect ; 61(6): 443-8, 2010 Dec.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-20932998

RESUMEN

Over the past years there has been a significant increase in the number of joint prosthesis replacements worldwide. The most serious complication of joint prosthesis is infection with an incidence of 1.5-2.5% for primary interventions and up to 20% for revision procedures. The mortality rate ranges between 1% and nearly 3%. The economic cost of this complication is up to $50,000 per patient and $250,000 million per year. A major issue in the management of prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is the relative difficulty in making a diagnosis so to cause a significant effect on the prognosis. Goals of the treatment are to eradicate infection, prevent its recurrence and preserve mechanical joint function. In this review we focus on the value of traditional and newer diagnostic tests and we discuss management and preventive strategies. European networks are needed to define the best diagnostic and treatment strategies in order to reduce future challenge posed by PJIs.


Asunto(s)
Artritis/diagnóstico , Artritis/terapia , Artroplastia de Reemplazo/efectos adversos , Infecciones Relacionadas con Prótesis/diagnóstico , Infecciones Relacionadas con Prótesis/terapia , Artritis/epidemiología , Artritis/mortalidad , Control de Enfermedades Transmisibles/métodos , Enfermedades Transmisibles/diagnóstico , Enfermedades Transmisibles/epidemiología , Enfermedades Transmisibles/mortalidad , Enfermedades Transmisibles/terapia , Humanos , Incidencia , Infecciones Relacionadas con Prótesis/epidemiología , Infecciones Relacionadas con Prótesis/mortalidad
4.
J Bone Joint Surg Br ; 86(2): 190-4, 2004 Mar.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-15046431

RESUMEN

Between 1990 and 1992, we implanted 71 hybrid alumina-on-alumina hip arthroplasties in 62 consecutive patients under the age of 55 years, with a mean age of 46 years at surgery. There were 56 primary and 15 secondary procedures. The prostheses involved a cemented titanium alloy stem, a 32 mm alumina head, and a press-fit metal-backed socket with an alumina insert. Three patients (four hips) died from unrelated causes. Four hips had revision surgery for either deep infection, unexplained persistent pain, fracture of the alumina head, or aseptic loosening of the socket. The nine-year survival rate was 93.7% with revision for any cause as the end-point and 98.4% with revision for aseptic loosening as the end-point. The outcome in the surviving patients (50 patients, 57 hips) with a minimum five-year follow-up (mean eight years) was excellent in 47 hips (82.5%), very good in eight (14%), good in one and fair in one. A thin, partial, lucent line, mainly in zone III was present in 38% of the sockets and one socket had a complete lucency less than 1 mm thick. One stem had isolated femoral osteolysis. There was no detectable component migration nor acetabular osteolysis. This hybrid arthroplasty gave satisfactory medium-term results in active patients. The press-fit metal-backed socket appeared to have reliable fixation in alumina-on-alumina hip arthroplasty. The excellent results using cemented fixation of the stem may be related to the low production of wear debris.


Asunto(s)
Óxido de Aluminio , Artroplastia de Reemplazo de Cadera/métodos , Prótesis de Cadera/normas , Adulto , Artroplastia de Reemplazo de Cadera/mortalidad , Cementación , Femenino , Necrosis de la Cabeza Femoral/cirugía , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Osteoartritis de la Cadera/cirugía , Dolor Postoperatorio/etiología , Dolor Postoperatorio/cirugía , Diseño de Prótesis/normas , Falla de Prótesis , Infecciones Relacionadas con Prótesis/etiología , Infecciones Relacionadas con Prótesis/mortalidad , Reoperación , Resultado del Tratamiento
5.
Ann Thorac Surg ; 64(6): 1702-6, 1997 Dec.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-9436558

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) was introduced clinically in 1980 for the management of ventricular arrhythmias. METHODS: From January 31, 1989, through May 29, 1996, 329 ICD devices were implanted at Allegheny University Hospital, Hahnemann Division, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. All device-related infections were examined. RESULTS: Fifteen patients (5%) experienced infection of the generator component of the ICD. There were 14 male and 1 female patients with a mean age of 62 years (range, 38 to 79 years). All infections involved the generator with or without other component involvement. Complete removal of the system was performed in 7 patients, partial removal in 5, and the entire system was left intact in 3. In 4 patients (27%), further procedures were performed to remove additional infection. Three patients (20%) died during the hospital stay. CONCLUSIONS: Infection of ICD devices is a devastating event. We favor complete removal of the ICD generator and all the components when possible. Partial removal of the ICD unit (ie, generator only) is reserved for patients in whom the risk of complete removal is too high and infection is confined to the generator only.


Asunto(s)
Desfibriladores Implantables/efectos adversos , Infecciones Relacionadas con Prótesis/terapia , Adulto , Anciano , Infecciones Bacterianas/mortalidad , Infecciones Bacterianas/terapia , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Infecciones Relacionadas con Prótesis/mortalidad
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA