ArticleCureus2024
Pacemaker Pocket Erosion: A Critical Issue Requiring Immediate Attention.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs), including pacemakers, implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICD), and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices, regulate heart rate and rhythm in patients with cardiac conditions. With an aging population, CIED-related complications, especially pacemaker pocket infections, are rising. Risk factors include frailty, older age, and superficial device fixation, while risk mitigation involves larger pocket sizes, submuscular fixation, and absorbable antibacterial envelopes. The debate continues regarding the optimal timing for device removal and lead extraction. This report presents a case of a 77-year-old male with a history of atrial fibrillation and prior methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) bacteremia, who was admitted with infection symptoms and a pacemaker erosion. Blood and wound cultures confirmed MSSA and the patient underwent successful lead and device extraction. He was treated with daptomycin and discharged two days after admission with close follow-up by infectious disease, cardiology, and wound care specialists. The case emphasizes the importance of timely intervention in CIED infections, highlighting occult bacteremia where no infection source is identified. Early removal, particularly within one day of presentation, led to a favorable outcome. Simple lead extraction was chosen because the device had been in place for less than a year, and age and comorbidities did not influence the decision. In the prior MSSA bacteremia episode, early lead and generator extraction might have prevented the second admission, reinforcing the value of early intervention. These findings underscore the need for vigilant monitoring and suggest that future guidelines could benefit from stratifying lead and device removal strategies based on implantation timing to enhance patient outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.