Stepwise transvenous lead extraction due to pacemaker pocket infection following lactational mastitis complicated with breast abscess.

BACKGROUND: Lactational mastitis is a common painful and debilitating inflammation of breast tissue, generally treated conservatively or with pus puncture in case of breast abscess. However, treating mastitis in patients with implantable surgical material located in the affected breast region can be extremely challenging. We present an unusual case of lactational mastitis complicated by pacemaker pocket infection in a breastfeeding mother. CASE PRESENTATION: A 35-year-old pacemaker-dependent female developed lactational mastitis seven weeks postpartum. Initially, the condition was treated conservatively with analgesics and antibiotics. After abscess formation, pus was aspirated using fine-needle aspiration technique. Four weeks after mastitis resolution, pacemaker pocket infection developed. According to current cardiovascular implantable electronic device infection treatment guidelines a complete surgical extraction of the entire electronic system, followed by targeted antibiotic treatment and reimplantation of a new device after infection resolution, was recommended. However, after thorough discussion with the young woman and her family and after detailed review of surgery-related risks, she declined a potentially high-risk surgical procedure. Thus, only the pulse generator was explanted; pacing leads positioned in the sub-pectoral pocket; new pacemaker implanted on the contralateral side and broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy continued for six weeks. After breastfeeding cessation, and with chronic fistula development at the primary pacemaker implantation site, the possibility of delayed surgical intervention including complete extraction of retained pacemaker leads was again thoroughly discussed with her. After thoughtful consideration the woman consented to the proposed treatment strategy. A surgical procedure including transvenous lead extraction through the primary implantation venous entry site, using hand-powered bidirectional rotational sheaths, was successfully performed, removing all retained leads through the left subclavian venous entry site, and leaving the fully functional and clinically uninfected pacemaker on the contralateral site intact. CONCLUSION: Although patients' decisions for delayed extraction in a case of cardiovascular implantable electronic device infection should be discouraged by attending physicians and members of interdisciplinary teams, our case shows that a stepwise treatment strategy may be successful as a bailout clinical scenario in patients with specific requests, demands and / or clinical needs.

Electrocardiographic Parameters as Predictors of Response to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy.

INTRODUCTION: Although strict selection criteria are used to select patients for cardiac resynchronisation therapy, up to 30% of patients do not have a positive clinical response. PATIENTS: A total of 102 consecutive patients who had biventricular pacemaker/defibrillator (CRT-P or CRT-D) implanted were enrolled in this prospective observational study. RESULTS: During the average follow-up period of 24.3 months 5 patients died and 17 (16.7%) patients were hospitalised with the symptoms of heart failure; 75 (73.5%) patients were responders based on the previously defined criteria. Responders in the group of LBBB patients kept the significant difference in a computed variable (S1 + R6) - (S6 + R1) and R6/S6 ratio. Responders in non-LBBB patients kept the significant difference only in the height of R waves in V6. The R6/S6 ratio tended to be higher, but it did not reach a statistical significance. CONCLUSION: None of the tested ECG parameters stands out as an independent predictor of response to cardiac resynchronisation therapy, but some of them were different in responder-compared to the non-responder group. The amplitude of R wave in V6, higher R/S ratio in V6 and higher computed variable (S1 + R6) - (S6 + R1) may predict the likelihood of response to CRT therapy in both LBBB-patients and non-LBBB patients.

Anticoagulation Management in Patients with Pacemaker-Detected Atrial Fibrillation.

INTRODUCTION: In patients with an implanted pacemaker, asymptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with an increased risk of thrombo-embolic complications. There is still no consensus which duration of episodes of atrial fibrillation should be taken as an indicator for inclusion of oral anticoagulation therapy (OAC). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 104 patients who had no AF episodes in the past and have an indication for permanent pacing were included in the study. RESULTS: During an average follow-up of 18 months, 33 of the patients developed episodes of AF. Inclusion of OAC was performed in 17 patients, in whom AF was recorded, although in all patients CHA2DS2-VASc score was ≥ 1. The inclusion of OAC showed a statistically significant correlation with increasing duration of episodes of AF (r = 0.502, p = 0.003). During the follow-up period none of the patients developed thrombo-embolic complication. CONCLUSION: Considering that our group of patients had no thrombo-embolic events, we could conclude that dividing the AF episodes in less than 1% in 24 hours and longer than 1% within 24 hours could be an indicator for decision-making to include OAK if the CHA2DS2-VASc score is ≥ 1.

Does left atrial appendage closure improve the success of pulmonary vein isolation? Results of a randomized clinical trial.

PURPOSE: The combination of left atrial appendage (LAA) occlusion with pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) potentially represents a comprehensive treatment for atrial fibrillation (AF), controlling symptoms while at the same time reducing the risk of stroke and the need for chronic anticoagulation. The aim of this randomized clinical trial was to assess the impact of LAA closure added to PVI in patients with high-risk AF. METHODS: Patients with a history of symptomatic paroxysmal or persistent AF refractory to ≥ 2 antiarrhythmic drugs, CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥ 2, and HAS-BLED score ≥ 3 were randomized to PVI-only (n = 44) or PVI with LAA closure (n = 45). RESULTS: Six patients in PVI + LAA closure group crossed over to PVI-only group due to failure of LAA closure device implantation. On-treatment comparisons at the 24 month follow-up revealed that 33 (66%) of the 50 PVI group and 23 (59%) of the 39 PVI with LAA closure group were AF-free on no antiarrhythmic drugs (p = 0.34). The PVI + LAA closure treatment was significantly associated with a higher AF burden during the blanking period: 9.7 ± 10.8 vs 4.2 ± 4.1% (p = 0.004). At the end follow-up, there were no serious complications and no strokes or thromboembolic events in either group. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of LAA closure device implantation with PVI was safe but was not observed to influence the success of PVI in patients with symptomatic refractory AF. Early AF after ablation, however, is increased by LAA closure. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01695824.