Safety of deferring the reimplantation of pacing systems after their removal for infectious complications in selected patients: a 1-year follow-up study.

INTRODUCTION: Recent expert consensus guidelines mention that one of the principles for infected device replacement following removal is to "reevaluate carefully if there is a continued need for a new cardiac device replacement." This is a Class I recommendation, which nevertheless suffers from a very low level of evidence (level of evidence C), since no study has revisited the systematic practice of reimplanting the same device based on a meticulous clinical reassessment. In the present paper, we examined the safety of withholding the implantation of pacing systems in selected patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: Between January 2005 and December 2007, 188 consecutive patients underwent extractions of infected pacing systems at 2 medical centers. "Low-risk" patients were identified by (1) a spontaneous heart rate >45 bpm, (2) no symptomatic asystole during monitoring, (3) QRS duration <120 ms when history of AV block was noted, (4) no high-degree AV block during continuous monitoring. They remained device-free, unless an adverse clinical event occurred mandating the reimplantation. The primary study endpoint was rate of sudden death and syncope after a 12-month follow-up. Among the 74 (39.4%) "low-risk" patients, a single patient suffered a bradycardia-related syncopal event corresponding to a 1.3% (95% CI, 0.0-3.9) rate of primary endpoint. Pacing systems were also reimplanted in 24 patients (32.4%) for syncope (n = 1), nonsevere bradycardia-reated symptoms (n = 17), cardiac resynchronization (n = 2), and for reassurance in 4 asymptomatic patients. CONCLUSION: After removal of infected pacing systems, these preliminary data demonstrated that a strategy of nonsystematic device reimplantation associated with close surveillance was safe in "low-risk" patients, allowing the administration of antimicrobials in a device-free state.

Patient blood management in elective bypass cardiac surgery: A 2-step single-centre interventional trial to analyse the impact of an educational programme and erythropoiesis stimulation on red blood cell transfusion.

Anaemia and iron deficiency are frequent in patients scheduled for cardiac surgery. Perioperative patient blood management (PBM) is widely recommended in current practice guidelines. The aim of this protocol is to analyse the effect of a global perioperative PBM programme on the red blood cell (RBC) transfusion ratio, morbidities and rehabilitation score in elective cardiac surgery.This study is a prospective, single-centre trial with a 2-step protocol, A and B, as follows: A: non-drug intervention: the caregiver is given a blood management educational programme; B: drug intervention: systematic correction of perioperative iron, vitamin deficiencies, and anaemia. This study was designed to enrol 900 patients (500 in group A and 400 in group B) in a rolling period starting at anaesthesia consultation and ending 3 months after surgery. The primary objective was a 20% reduction in RBC transfusion after implementation of PBM programmes (protocol A + B) when compared to our previous transfusion ratio in the first half of 2018 (30.4% vs 38%). The secondary objectives were to evaluate the impact for each step of the study on the RBC transfusion rate, morbidity and the quality of postoperative rehabilitation.The strength of this study is its evaluation of the effect of a global PBM programme on RBC transfusion in cardiac surgery through a 2-step protocol. We aim to assess for the first time the impact of non-drug and drug interventions on RBC transfusion, comorbidities and delayed rehabilitation parameters. TRIALS REGISTRATIONS: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04040023: registered 29 July 2019.

Contributions of advanced techniques to the success and safety of transvenous leads extraction.

PURPOSE: We measured the proportion of intravascular leads, which can be extracted by simple traction versus with newer techniques, and examined the overall safety and success rate of lead extractions. METHODS: Between January 2005 and December 2007, 311 consecutive patients (mean age = 70 +/- 14 years, 79% men) underwent extractions of 250 atrial, 318 ventricular, and 22 coronary sinus leads, in the surgical facilities of two experienced medical centers, under general anesthesia, at a mean of 7.2 +/- 5.1 years (range 0.1-27.0) after lead implantation. Infection was the indication for extraction in 67.5% of cases. Complementary techniques were used when simple extraction with a locking stylet was unsuccessful. RESULTS: Simple traction, with or without a locking stylet, allowed the complete removal in 27.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 22.1-31.9) of patients. A mechanical sheath, laser sheath, and/or lasso catheter were used in the remaining patients. The overall extraction success rate was 89.7% (95% CI 86.3-93.1). There was one procedure-related death (0.3%; 95% CI 0.0-1.0). Among five other deaths occurring within 10 days after the procedure, four were due to septic shock. Duration of lead implantation was the strongest independent predictor of major adverse events (P = 0.002) and incomplete lead extraction (P = 0.005). CONCLUSION: In contrast with simple traction, advanced techniques allowed the complete extraction of nearly 90% of leads. In experienced hands and with surgical back-up, these techniques were safe. Patients presenting with infected implanted cardiac devices suffered a high rate of major adverse despite complete extraction of the lead(s).