TY - JOUR
T1 - Complication risk with pulse generator change
T2 - Implications when reacting to a device advisory or recall
AU - Kapa, Suraj
AU - Hyberger, Linda
AU - Rea, Robert F.
AU - Hayes, David L.
PY - 2007/6/1
Y1 - 2007/6/1
N2 - Background: Recent advisories and recalls of pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) have highlighted the need for evidence-based recommendations regarding management of patients with advisory devices. In order to better facilitate decision-making when weighing the relative risks and benefits of performing generator changes in these patients, we conducted a review to assess operative complication rates. Methods: We reviewed generator changes performed between 2000 and 2005 at the Mayo Clinic-Rochester, including a total of 732 change-outs consisting of 570 done for elective replacement indicators (ERI) and 162 for manufacturer advisories or recalls. Complications included all those requiring reoperation, occurring within a 60-day period postoperatively and directly attributable to the generator change. These included infection requiring device excision, hematoma requiring evacuation, and incisional dehiscence requiring reclosure. Results: Operation-associated complications requiring intervention were noted in 9 patients, or 1.24% of our population. Of these nine complications, eight occurred among patients receiving pulse generator replacement for ERI (1.40%) and one occurred in a patient receiving replacement for a manufacturer advisory or recall (0.62%). Complications included 5 infections, 3 hematomas, and 1 incisional dehiscence. Conclusions: Generator replacement is not a benign procedure and associated risks must be weighed in the context of other variables when making management choices in patients with advisory or recall devices.
AB - Background: Recent advisories and recalls of pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) have highlighted the need for evidence-based recommendations regarding management of patients with advisory devices. In order to better facilitate decision-making when weighing the relative risks and benefits of performing generator changes in these patients, we conducted a review to assess operative complication rates. Methods: We reviewed generator changes performed between 2000 and 2005 at the Mayo Clinic-Rochester, including a total of 732 change-outs consisting of 570 done for elective replacement indicators (ERI) and 162 for manufacturer advisories or recalls. Complications included all those requiring reoperation, occurring within a 60-day period postoperatively and directly attributable to the generator change. These included infection requiring device excision, hematoma requiring evacuation, and incisional dehiscence requiring reclosure. Results: Operation-associated complications requiring intervention were noted in 9 patients, or 1.24% of our population. Of these nine complications, eight occurred among patients receiving pulse generator replacement for ERI (1.40%) and one occurred in a patient receiving replacement for a manufacturer advisory or recall (0.62%). Complications included 5 infections, 3 hematomas, and 1 incisional dehiscence. Conclusions: Generator replacement is not a benign procedure and associated risks must be weighed in the context of other variables when making management choices in patients with advisory or recall devices.
KW - Device advisory
KW - Device recall
KW - Operative risk
KW - Pulse generator change
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34249783107&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=34249783107&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/j.1540-8159.2007.00742.x
DO - 10.1111/j.1540-8159.2007.00742.x
M3 - Review article
C2 - 17547604
AN - SCOPUS:34249783107
SN - 0147-8389
VL - 30
SP - 730
EP - 733
JO - PACE - Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology
JF - PACE - Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology
IS - 6
ER -