Staphylococcus bacteremia without evidence of cardiac implantable electronic device infection.

BACKGROUND: Staphylococcus bacteremia (SB) in the presence of a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) is frequently associated with CIED infection. In patients without clear CIED infection but SB, the role of empirical CIED removal is unclear. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to describe the natural history of SB in the setting of a CIED and the effect of CIED removal on mortality in patients with concurrent SB without evidence of CIED infection. METHODS: Three hundred sixty consecutive patients (mean age 61 ± 17 years; 255 (71%) men; 329 (92%) Staphylococcus aureus) with a CIED and concurrent SB were reviewed. RESULTS: At the initial presentation with SB, 178 patients had no evidence of CIED infection. Of these, 132 (74%) had another identified source of infection. Among the 178 patients without CIED infection, 18 (10%) had empirical CIED removal during the initial bacteremia. Among those who did not undergo CIED removal, SB subsequently relapsed in 19% and relapse rates were not different for those with or without another identifiable source at the initial presentation. Relapse was strongly associated with the duration of SB >1 day (odds ratio 9.99; 95% confidence interval 3.24-30.86). Despite the absence of CIED infection, 1-year mortality was 35% and empirical device removal during the initial presentation was associated with survival benefit (hazard ratio 0.28; 95% confidence interval 0.08-0.95). CONCLUSION: For patients with SB without evidence of CIED infection, relapse is predicted by the duration of bacteremia. Empirical CIED removal appears to be associated with a survival benefit, although there are likely clinical situations in which this could be deferred.

Detection of high-frequency artifact as a function of pulse generator algorithms and outer-insulation material.

BACKGROUND: A high rate of malfunction, predominantly intermittent high-frequency artifacts (HFAs), has been recently reported in Abbott Medical Tendril pacing leads. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the factors associated with the occurrence of HFAs on Tendril leads using a commonly used comparator lead for a control. METHODS: We reviewed institutional data for Medtronic CapSureFix 5076 and Abbott Medical Tendril pace-sense leads retrospectively. Recordings deemed to be due to electromagnetic interference and far-field oversensing were not included in the classification of HFAs. RESULTS: A total of 7673 leads were analyzed: 1628 Optim-insulated Tendril leads, 825 non-Optim Tendril leads, and 5220 CapSureFix 5076. HFAs were seen in 212 leads and were more frequently observed in Tendril compared to CapSureFix leads during a mean follow-up of 4.1 ± 3.6 years. Lower age at implant, defibrillator systems, atrial position, and connection to an Abbott Medical generator were associated with increased HFA. In multivariable analysis, only connection to Abbott Medical generators (odds ratio 7.686, P < .001) and age (odds ratio 0.988 per year, P = .016) were independently associated with HFAs on pace-sense leads. In an Abbott-generator-only analysis, Optim-insulated Tendril leads were more likely to display HFAs than non-Optim Tendril leads but not Medtronic CapSureFix 5076 leads. CONCLUSION: Abbott Medical pulse generators independently predict HFA in Tendril and CapSureFix 5076 leads, likely the result of displaying short or low-amplitude noise episodes that other devices do not record. When restricted to Abbott generators only, Optim-insulated Tendril leads show an increased incidence of HFAs when compared to non-Optim Tendril leads but not CapSureFix 5076 leads.

Prevention and Treatment of Atrioesophageal Fistula Related to Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation.

Atrioesophageal fistula (AEF) is an uncommon but devastating complication of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation. Even with appropriate recognition and treatment, mortality is greater than 30% in most studies. If AEF is suspected, it is essential to avoid endoscopy and to order immediate cross-sectional imaging. If the diagnosis is confirmed, a thoracic surgeon should be promptly notified and must assess the patient urgently. The prognosis for AEF is poor even if it is appropriately recognized and addressed, so prevention must be a high priority. Prevention of AEF should involve the use of low-risk and cost-effective measures during ablation, which may increase safety, efficacy, or both. These strategies may include conscious sedation (as opposed to general anesthesia), low-power ablation, low-flow irrigation, short-duration lesions, esophageal temperature measurement, esophageal deviation, and pharmacologic prophylaxis with proton pump inhibitors or histamine H2 receptor blockers. Multiple new technologies are now becoming available, which may further reduce esophageal injury. Proceduralists should be aware of the available techniques and equipment that may help to reduce the risk of AEF, while simultaneously considering the possibility of unintended consequences.