Responses

Download PDFPDF
Contemporary management of cardiac implantable electronic device infection
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

  • Published on:
    A novel strategy to distinguish between an infective and a non infective vegetation

    In the context of suspected cardiac implantable electronic device infection a fundamental flaw in transoesophageal echocardiography(TOE) is that this modality does not distinguish between infective and non infective masses situated on the electronic device lead. For example, in one study 25 patients who underwent TOE were shown to have either a lead vegetation(11 cases) or lead strands(13 cases) or both(1 case). Nevertheless, 18 of of those 25 patients proved, after exhaustive evaluation, to have no evidence of infection(1). According to a recent report, however, guided biopsy of a lead-associated mass, by means of a biotome, can facilitate the distinction between an infective versus non infective device-related mass. In Case 1 of that report an 80 year old woman with a pacemaker presented with mild leucocytosis in the setting of a recent dental procedure, but was afebrile. Transoesophageal echocardiography(TOE) disclosed a 1.6 X 1.0 cm mass on her right atrial lead. Using femoral access and fluoroscopic guidance the mass was biopsied under TOE guidance. The mass proved to be a thrombus with irregular fragments of soft tissue. The gram stain showed no polymorphonuclear cells and the tissue culture confirmed no growth. Case 2 in that report was a 29 year old man with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in the setting of intermittent fever and night sweats. TOE revealed a 2.9 cm X 1.2 mass encasing the device lead. A single blood culture grew a Propionib...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    compelling evidence of the utility of PET/CT in optimising the diagnosis of cardiac implantable electronic device infection

    Notwithstanding the high costs and lack of reimbursement associated with the use of positron emission tomography/computed tomography(PET/CT) in suspected cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection(1), the ability of this modality to distinguish between infective and non infective vegetations is a powerful argument for its inclusion in the workup of suspected CIED. Evidence of the ability to make this distinction comes from two sources(2)(3). Firstly, in a retrospective study of 177 transoesophageal echocardiographic studies performed on 153 consecutive patients, a visible mass was observed on a device lead in 25 instances. In 11 studies this was a lead vegetation, in 13 instances only lead strands were seen, and in one instance a lead vegetation coexisted with a lead strand. Nevertheless, 18 of the 25 patients with lead-associated masses had no other evidence of infection. In that study the presence or absence of infection was adjudicated by three clinical investigators who independently reviewed all available clinical data without knowledge of the echocardiographic results(2). In another study, 63 consecutive patients(mean age 68.6) with suspected CIED were evaluated both by echocardiography(tranasthoracic and transoesophageal) and by PET/CT. Echocardiography was associated with a positive predictive value(PPV) of 83.3%, and a negative predictive value(NPV) of 69.2%. For PET/CT, PPV and NPV amounted to 100% and 93.9%, respectively(3). The additional ut...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.