Feasibility and safety of bridge therapy with active fixed electrodes connected to external permanent pacemakers for patients with infective endocarditis after lead removal and before permanent pacemaker implantation / 中华心血管病杂志

Objective: To analyze the feasibility and safety of bridge therapy with active fixed electrodes connected to external permanent pacemakers (AFLEP) for patients with infective endocarditis after lead removal and before permanent pacemaker implantation. Methods: A total of 44 pacemaker-dependent patients, who underwent lead removal due to infective endocarditis in our center from January 2015 to January 2020, were included. According to AFLEP or temporary pacemaker option during the transition period, patients were divided into AFLEP group or temporary pacemaker group. Information including age, sex, comorbidities, indications and types of cardial implantable electionic device (CIED) implantation, lead age, duration of temporary pacemaker or AFLEP use, and perioperative complications were collected through Haitai Medical Record System. The incidence of pacemaker perception, abnormal pacing function, lead perforation, lead dislocation, lead vegetation, cardiac tamponade, pulmonary embolism, death and newly infection of implanted pacemaker were compared between the two groups. Pneumothorax, hematoma and the incidence of deep vein thrombosis were also analyzed. Results: Among the 44 patients, 24 were in the AFLEP group and 20 in the temporary pacemaker group. Age was younger in the AFLEP group than in the temporary pacemaker group (57.5(45.5, 66.0) years vs. 67.0(57.3, 71.8) years, P=0.023). Male, prevalence of hypertension, diabetes mellitus, chronic renal dysfunction and old myocardial infarction were similar between the two groups (all P>0.05). Lead duration was 11.0(8.0,13.0) years in the AFLEP group and 8.5(7.0,13.0) years in the temporary pacemaker group(P=0.292). Lead vegetation diameter was (8.2±2.4)mm in the AFLEP group and (9.1±3.0)mm in the temporary pacemaker group. Lead removal was successful in all patients. The follow-up time in the AFLEP group was 23.0(20.5, 25.5) months, and the temporary pacemaker group was 17.0(14.5, 18.5) months. In the temporary pacemaker group, there were 2 cases (10.0%) of lead dislocation, 2 cases (10.0%) of sensory dysfunction, 2 cases (10.0%) of pacing dysfunction, and 2 cases (10.0%) of death. In the AFLEP group, there were 2 cases of abnormal pacing function, which improved after adjusting the output voltage of the pacemaker, there was no lead dislocation, abnormal perception and death. Femoral vein access was used in 8 patients (40.0%) in the temporary pacemaker group, and 4 patients developed lower extremity deep venous thrombosis. There was no deep venous thrombosis in the AFLEP group. The transition treatment time was significantly longer in the AFLEP group than in the temporary pacemaker group (19.5(16.0, 25.8) days vs. 14.0(12.0, 16.8) days, P=0.001). During the follow-up period, there were no reinfections with newly implanted pacemakers in the AFLEP group, and reinfection occurred in 2 patients (10.0%) in the temporary pacemaker group. Conclusions: Bridge therapy with AFLEP for patients with infective endocarditis after lead removal and before permanent pacemaker implantation is feasible and safe. Compared with temporary pacemaker, AFLEP is safer in the implantation process and more stable with lower lead dislocation rate, less sensory and pacing dysfunction.

Classification and treatment of syndesmotic injury / 中国骨伤

The distal tibiofibular syndesmosis is a critical structure in maintaining the ankle stability. Syndesmotic injuries are usually associated with ankle fractures and high fibula fractures. Non-isolated and partially isolated syndesmotic injuries are involved in unstable injuries, which need to operative treatment. Partially isolated syndesmotic injuries belong to stable injuries, which should be treated with non-operative management. It is becoming clear that early fixation and stabilization for unstable injuries are probably better than non-treatment or delayed treatment. It still remains without consensus of accurately defining stable from unstable injuries and sufficiently differentiating between acute and chronic injuries. Because of stability, fixation type, and duration, the clinical efficacy is different. Screw fixation is a gold standard treatment of syndesmotic injury. However, it remains controversial that whether removal of the syndesmotic screw is required and effect of the level of syndesmotic screw insertion, limited micro-movement is one of disadvantages of screw fixation. Micro-movement of the distal tibiofibular syndesmosis has been paid more and more attention. Dynamic fixation is a viable alternative to the static fixation device, with lower re-operation rates and less complications, which has obtained a great short-term clinical efficacy. However, further long-term studies should be carried out to confirm this clinical efficacy. Optimized treatment strategies considering stability of syndesmotic injury, duration, and fixation type can help to improve clinical efficacy.