4.1 Article

Predictors of mortality and outcomes in transvenous lead extraction for systemic and local infection cohorts

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/pace.13542

关键词

cardiac implantable electronic device infection; device complications; local versus systemic infection; systemic versus local infection; transvenous lead extraction

资金

  1. Wellcome/EPSRC Centre for Medical Engineering [WT203148/Z/16/Z]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) may be necessary due to infective and noninfective indications. We aim to identify predictors of 30-day mortality and risk factors between infective versus noninfective groups and systemic versus local infection subgroups. Methods A total of 925 TLEs between October 2000 and December 2016 were prospectively collected and dichotomized (infective group n = 505 vs noninfective group n = 420 and systemic infection n = 164 vs local infection n = 341). Results All-cause major complication including deaths was significantly higher (5.1%, n = 26 vs 1.2%, n = 5, P = 0.001) as well as 30-day mortality (4.0%, n = 20 vs 0.2%, n = 1, P < 0.001) in the infective group compared to the noninfective group. Both subgroups (systemic vs local infection) were balanced for demographics. All-cause major complication including deaths was significantly higher (9.1%, n = 15 vs 3.2%, n = 11, P = 0.008) as well as all-cause 30-day mortality (7.9%, n = 13 vs 2.1%, n = 7, P = 0.003) in the systemic infection subgroup compared to the local infection subgroup. Conclusion Patients undergoing TLE for infective indications are at greater risk of 30-day all-cause mortality compared to noninfective patients. Patients undergoing TLE for systemic infective indications are at greater risk of 30-day all-cause mortality compared to patients with local infection. Renal impairment, systemic infection, and elevated preprocedure C-reactive protein are independent predictors of 30-day all-cause mortality in patients undergoing TLE for an infective indication.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据