A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Leadless Pacemaker Implantation During Extraction in Patients with Active Infection: A Comprehensive Analysis of Safety, Patient Benefits and Costs. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infections necessitate extraction and subsequent pacing interventions. Conventional methods after removing the infected CIED system involve temporary or semi-permanent pacing followed by delayed permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation. Leadless pacemakers (LPs) may offer an alternative, allowing immediate PPM implantation without increasing infection risks. Our objective is to evaluate the safety and cost-effectiveness of LP implantation during the same procedure of CIED extraction, compared to conventional two-stage approaches. Pacemaker-dependent patients with systemic or pocket infection undergoing device extraction and LP implantation during the same procedure at Sheba Medical Center, Israel, were compared to a historical group of patients undergoing a semi-permanent (SP) pacemaker implantation during the procedure, followed by a permanent pacemaker implantation. The cohort included 87 patients, 45 undergoing LP implantation and 42 SP implantation during the extraction procedure. The LP group demonstrated shorter intensive care unit stay (1 ± 3 days vs. 7 ± 12 days, < 0.001) and overall hospital days (11 ± 24 days vs. 17 ± 17 days, < 0.001). Rates of infection relapse and one-year mortality were comparable between groups. Economic analysis revealed comparable total costs, despite the higher initial expense of LPs. LP implantation during CIED extraction offers significant clinical and logistical advantages, including reduced hospital stays and streamlined treatment, with comparable safety and cost-effectiveness to conventional approaches.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12347342PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm14155450DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

pacemaker implantation
12
implantation procedure
12
days days
12
implantation
10
implantation extraction
8
permanent pacemaker
8
ppm implantation
8
safety cost-effectiveness
8
cied extraction
8
patients undergoing
8

Similar Publications