			Home About us Contact

Therapy Devices (therapy + device)

Distribution by Scientific Domains

Medical Sciences	100%

Selected Abstracts

Introduction of Infection Control Measures to Reduce Infection Associated With Implantable Pain Therapy Devices

PAIN PRACTICE, Issue 3 2007
Abram H. Burgher MD
Abstract Introduction: Implantable pain therapy devices for chronic pain include spinal cord stimulators (SCS) and intrathecal drug delivery systems (IDDS). A number of different complications can occur after implantation of these devices, but among the most serious is infection. Based on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines for prevention of surgical site infection, published literature on infection risk with implantable pain therapy devices, and recommendations from groups within our own our institution, we introduced infection control measures for all patients receiving either SCS or IDDS. Methods: After approval from the Institutional Review Board, we performed a retrospective review of patients undergoing primary implantation of SCS or IDDS before and after introduction at our institution of safety measures designed to reduce device-related infection. We compared infection incidence and compliance to infection precautions before and after introduction of these measures. Results: Thirty-four SCS or IDDS were implanted before implementation of the infection control measures and 58 were placed after. Five device-related infections occurred. Adherence to most infection precautions improved during the study period, but 100% compliance was seen only with venue used for implantation. Infection incidence declined after introduction of the safety measures, but the reduction was not statistically significant. Conclusions: Introduction of infection control measures for implantable pain therapy devices improved adherence to most infection precautions in our practice. Lack of specific documentation could have hindered practice surveillance within our group. A tool to document performance of infection control measures would be useful not only as a marker of compliance but could also serve as a reminder to perform certain safety measures. [source]

Device-Related Infection Among Patients With Pacemakers and Implantable Defibrillators: Incidence, Risk Factors, and Consequences

JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 7 2010
PABLO B. NERY M.D.
Risk Factors and Complications of Pacemaker and ICD Infection.,Background: Device-related infection is a major limitation of device therapy for cardiac arrhythmia. Methods: The authors analyzed the incidence and risk factors for cardiac device infection (CDI) among consecutive patients implanted with pacemaker (PM) or implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) (including cardiac resynchronization therapy devices) at a tertiary health center in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Most patients with device-related infections were identified by an internal infection control system that reports any positive wound and blood cultures following surgery, between 2005 and the present. A retrospective review of patient records was also performed for all patients who received an ICD or PM between July 1, 2003 and March 20, 2007. Results: A total of 24 infections were identified among 2,417 patients having device surgery (1%). Fifteen of these infections (60%) were diagnosed within 90 days of the last surgical procedure. Univariate analysis showed that patients presenting with CDI were more likely to have had a device replacement, rather than a new implant, had more complex devices (dual/triple chamber vs single), and were more likely to have had a prior lead dislodgement. Multivariate analysis found device replacement (P = 0.02) and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT)/dual-chamber devices (P = 0.048) to be independent predictors of infection. One patient developed septic pulmonary emboli after having laser-assisted lead extraction. No patient died and 22 patients received a new device. Conclusion: CDI occurs in about 1% of cases in high volume facilities. Pulse generator replacement surgery and dual- or triple-chamber device implantation were associated with a significantly increased risk of infection. (J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol, Vol. pp. 786-790, July 2010) [source]

Long-Term Outcomes of CRT-PM Versus CRT-D Recipients

PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 2009
GIUSEPPE STABILE M.D.
Objective: To compare the rates of all-cause mortality in recipients of cardiac resynchronization therapy devices without (CRT-PM) versus with defibrillator (CRT-D). Methods: Between February 1999 and July 2004, 233 patients (mean age = 69 ± 8 years, 180 men) underwent implantation of CRT-PM or CRT-D devices. New York Heart Association (NYHA) heart failure functional class II was present in 11%, class III in 69%, and class IV in 20% of patients; mean left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) was 26.5 ± 6.5 %, 48% presented with idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy and 49% with ischemic heart disease. Cox multiple variable regression analysis was performed in search of predictors of death. Results: The clinical characteristics of the 117 CRT-PM and 116 CRT-D recipients were similar, except for LVEF (28.2 ± 6.2% vs 25.0 ± 6.5%, respectively; P < 0.001), and ischemic versus nonischemic etiology of heart failure (41% vs 56%, respectively P = 0.02). Over a mean follow-up of 58 ± 15 months, no significance difference in overall mortality rate was observed between the two study groups. Male sex, NYHA functional class IV, and atrial fibrillation at implant were significant predictors of death. Conclusions: There was no difference in long-term survival rate among patients with CRT-D versus CRT-PM, although CRT-D more effectively lowered the sudden death rate. Male sex, NYHA functional class IV, and atrial fibrillation predicted the worst prognosis. [source]