Cargando…

Unusual conservative treatment of a complicated pacemaker pocket infection: a case report

BACKGROUND: For patients with complicated generator pocket infection, expert consensuses universally advocate complete device and leads removal followed by delayed replacement on the contralateral side. We cured our patient by partial generator removal and reimplantation of sterilized pulse generato...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kang, Wanqiu, Chen, Xiaoming, Li, Zicheng, Zhang, Aidong, Liu, Jingwen, Yu, Liqiong, Wen, Yingzhen
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6397748/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30825875
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13256-019-1987-x
_version_ 1783399455137988608
author Kang, Wanqiu
Chen, Xiaoming
Li, Zicheng
Zhang, Aidong
Liu, Jingwen
Yu, Liqiong
Wen, Yingzhen
author_facet Kang, Wanqiu
Chen, Xiaoming
Li, Zicheng
Zhang, Aidong
Liu, Jingwen
Yu, Liqiong
Wen, Yingzhen
author_sort Kang, Wanqiu
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: For patients with complicated generator pocket infection, expert consensuses universally advocate complete device and leads removal followed by delayed replacement on the contralateral side. We cured our patient by partial generator removal and reimplantation of sterilized pulse generator on the ipsilateral side. We also performed a literature review about incomplete removal therapy for the management of cardiac implantable electronic device infection. CASE PRESENTATION: An 86-year-old Chinese Han man was diagnosed as having third-degree atrioventricular block and received a permanent double-chamber pacemaker in his left prepectoral area 15 years ago. Nine years later, the entire system was removed because of confirmed infection, and a new device was reimplanted in the contralateral area. He developed skin necrosis around the pacemaker pocket after 1 year, and his generator was renewed without leads extraction at another medical center. He was subsequently admitted several times for surgical tissue debridement at another institution due to extended skin necrosis. At the time of the new admission, he had severe infection, heart failure, and hypoalbuminemia. He was diagnosed as having complicated pacemaker pocket infection. Our preferred treatment strategy was for complete removal of both the generator and transvenous pacing leads, and we intended to implant an epicardial pacemaker in our patient if necessary. However, he rejected the treatment strategy and firmly refused to replace his generator. We had to attempt a novel pacemaker-preserving strategy considering our patient’s severe comorbidities. Finally, we cured him by partial generator removal and reimplantation of the sterilized pulse generator on the ipsilateral side. There was no sign of wound dehiscence or infection during a 6-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: We would posit that partial removal of infected generators combined with conservative treatment may be a proper treatment of complicated generator pocket infection, especially for those who are susceptible to cardiac complications. Reimplantation of a sterilized pulse generator on the ipsilateral side may be an option if patients reject a new device and contralateral vascular condition is not really suitable. Opting for such treatment should be at the consideration of the primary care physician based on the condition of the patient.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6397748
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-63977482019-03-13 Unusual conservative treatment of a complicated pacemaker pocket infection: a case report Kang, Wanqiu Chen, Xiaoming Li, Zicheng Zhang, Aidong Liu, Jingwen Yu, Liqiong Wen, Yingzhen J Med Case Rep Case Report BACKGROUND: For patients with complicated generator pocket infection, expert consensuses universally advocate complete device and leads removal followed by delayed replacement on the contralateral side. We cured our patient by partial generator removal and reimplantation of sterilized pulse generator on the ipsilateral side. We also performed a literature review about incomplete removal therapy for the management of cardiac implantable electronic device infection. CASE PRESENTATION: An 86-year-old Chinese Han man was diagnosed as having third-degree atrioventricular block and received a permanent double-chamber pacemaker in his left prepectoral area 15 years ago. Nine years later, the entire system was removed because of confirmed infection, and a new device was reimplanted in the contralateral area. He developed skin necrosis around the pacemaker pocket after 1 year, and his generator was renewed without leads extraction at another medical center. He was subsequently admitted several times for surgical tissue debridement at another institution due to extended skin necrosis. At the time of the new admission, he had severe infection, heart failure, and hypoalbuminemia. He was diagnosed as having complicated pacemaker pocket infection. Our preferred treatment strategy was for complete removal of both the generator and transvenous pacing leads, and we intended to implant an epicardial pacemaker in our patient if necessary. However, he rejected the treatment strategy and firmly refused to replace his generator. We had to attempt a novel pacemaker-preserving strategy considering our patient’s severe comorbidities. Finally, we cured him by partial generator removal and reimplantation of the sterilized pulse generator on the ipsilateral side. There was no sign of wound dehiscence or infection during a 6-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: We would posit that partial removal of infected generators combined with conservative treatment may be a proper treatment of complicated generator pocket infection, especially for those who are susceptible to cardiac complications. Reimplantation of a sterilized pulse generator on the ipsilateral side may be an option if patients reject a new device and contralateral vascular condition is not really suitable. Opting for such treatment should be at the consideration of the primary care physician based on the condition of the patient. BioMed Central 2019-03-03 /pmc/articles/PMC6397748/ /pubmed/30825875 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13256-019-1987-x Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Case Report
Kang, Wanqiu
Chen, Xiaoming
Li, Zicheng
Zhang, Aidong
Liu, Jingwen
Yu, Liqiong
Wen, Yingzhen
Unusual conservative treatment of a complicated pacemaker pocket infection: a case report
title Unusual conservative treatment of a complicated pacemaker pocket infection: a case report
title_full Unusual conservative treatment of a complicated pacemaker pocket infection: a case report
title_fullStr Unusual conservative treatment of a complicated pacemaker pocket infection: a case report
title_full_unstemmed Unusual conservative treatment of a complicated pacemaker pocket infection: a case report
title_short Unusual conservative treatment of a complicated pacemaker pocket infection: a case report
title_sort unusual conservative treatment of a complicated pacemaker pocket infection: a case report
topic Case Report
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6397748/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30825875
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13256-019-1987-x
work_keys_str_mv AT kangwanqiu unusualconservativetreatmentofacomplicatedpacemakerpocketinfectionacasereport
AT chenxiaoming unusualconservativetreatmentofacomplicatedpacemakerpocketinfectionacasereport
AT lizicheng unusualconservativetreatmentofacomplicatedpacemakerpocketinfectionacasereport
AT zhangaidong unusualconservativetreatmentofacomplicatedpacemakerpocketinfectionacasereport
AT liujingwen unusualconservativetreatmentofacomplicatedpacemakerpocketinfectionacasereport
AT yuliqiong unusualconservativetreatmentofacomplicatedpacemakerpocketinfectionacasereport
AT wenyingzhen unusualconservativetreatmentofacomplicatedpacemakerpocketinfectionacasereport